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 ("RCE"), 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 17, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a Final Office Action having a notification date of September 15, 2025 (“Final Office Action”). Following the Final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on November 17, 2025 (“Amendment”), amending claims 1, 15, and 20; canceling claims 2 and 16; and adding new claims 21 and 22. The Amendment resulted in an Advisory Action dated November 21, 2025, indicating non-entry of the Amendment. Applicant then filed the RCE on December 15, 2025, requesting entry of the Amendment.
The present non-final Office Action addresses pending claims 1, 3-15, and 17-22 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
Starting on page 11 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the present claims amount to more than mere mental processes because they recite "simulating, in the 3D environment, a user interacting with the workspace" and "applying, during the simulating, a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset." The Examiner disagrees because these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These additional limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the user interaction and gravity modifying simulation and workspace modification actually occur.
Stated differently, the present claims call for simulating a user interacting with a workspace and simulating gravity being applied to the user which do not indicate what specific steps are undertaken to achieve such results other than using the mental processes abstract idea in the context of a workspace simulation (e.g., similar to how modifying an underlying XML document in response to modifications made to a dynamic document was found to merely recite the "idea of a solution" in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017); MPEP 2106.05(f)). That the gravity modifier is applied "based on a physics-based gravity dataset" still does not describe how the physics-based gravity dataset is used to apply the gravity modifier during the simulation. Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
On pages 12-13 of the Amendment, Applicant then asserts that the claims do not recite any limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper. The Examiner disagrees because a user could practically in their mind with pen and paper assess physiological angles of a person (e.g., elbow joints, knee joints, back arching, etc.) as someone interacts with a workspace in a 3D environment during a simulation in which gravity is applied (e.g., via observing the simulation on a display), identify a potential ergonomic risk by comparing the physiological angles relative to an anthropometric standard, and cause the risk to be presented (e.g., writing it down). For instance, the user could readily identify a potential ergonomic risk when one of the physiological angles exceeds a corresponding threshold angle for the body part. Furthermore, a user could practically perform such steps repeatedly until a potential ergonomic risk is below a predetermined threshold. For example, upon the user determining that a potential ergonomic risk exists based on comparing one or more of the physiological angles to the anthropometric standard, the user could determine a modification to the workspace and then reassess the physiological angles and ergonomic risk after implementation of the modification (and repeatedly perform such steps until the risk is below a threshold).
That the "simulating" and "applying" steps are "additional limitations" that cannot be practically performed in the human mind does not negate the fact that the present claims include the above limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper such that the present claims are nevertheless still directed to at least one abstract idea.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
On page 14 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that Ankory does not disclose applying, during the simulating, a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset but instead "appears to disclose using a simple Boolean flag to indicate whether a graphics engine should apply a basic gravity effect to a 3D object for positioning or animation purposes. Ankory, col. 38, ll. 1-24. The "gravity" attribute of Ankory is a setting that determines whether the object is treated as subject to a generic "downward" direction. Ankory does not disclose applying gravity during a simulation, using a gravity modifier to influence a simulated user's physiological angles, or that the gravity modifier is based on a physics-based gravity dataset."
However, Ankory teaches (Abstract; 12:31-57) that it was known in the design simulation art to provide a design model/space (e.g., a 3D environment per 7:41-42; 37:46); simulate a behavior of at least one digital user in said model; simulate at least one environmental effect modulated by said model and affecting or affected by at least one of said at least one digital user (including employing various types of physics modeling methods to selectively apply gravity to the user per 37:7-8; 38:22-26,42-44); and evaluate the design model based on a result of the simulations including assessing ergonomic impacts on the users. Such physics modeling methods would necessarily involve using math/equations/code to analyze various forces/moments/characteristics/etc. of the 3D environment (i.e., modeling the physics of the 3D environment) to understand/analyze how gravity would be applied in the environment, where use of such math/equations/code would necessarily result in some dataset ("physics-based gravity dataset") representing the calculations/intermediate/final results of the math/equations/code). This system advantageously provides a more realistic simulation by taking into account forces (e.g., gravity) that would be acting on the user in a real-world situation thereby improving the accuracy of determined assessments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied, during the simulating, a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset in the system of the Bourret/Bourke combination as taught by Ankory to advantageously provide a more realistic simulation by taking into account forces (e.g., gravity) that would be acting on the user in a real-world situation thereby improving the accuracy of determined assessments and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
As modified by Ankory, the assessed physiological angles as already disclosed by Bourret in relation to claim 1 would thus be based on the simulated gravity on the user in the 3D environment.
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, 3-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-14, 21, and 22 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 15 and 17-19 are directed to a tool (i.e., a machine), and claims 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1, 3-15, and 17-22 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 15 recites:
An ergonomic assessment tool, comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more memory devices storing a program, which, when executed by any combination of the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform an operation, the operation comprising:
inputting a three-dimensional (3D) model of a workspace into a 3D environment of an ergonomic assessment tool; and
repeatedly and automatically, until a potential ergonomic risk is below a predetermined threshold:
simulating, in the 3D environment, a user interacting with the workspace;
applying, during the simulating, a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset;
assessing, during the simulating, one or more physiological angles of the user as the user interacts with the workspace in the 3D environment, wherein the one or more physiological angles are based on the simulated gravity on the user in the 3D environment;
identifying the potential ergonomic risk by comparing the one or more physiological angles relative to an anthropometric standard;
causing, when identified, the potential ergonomic risk to be presented; and
modifying the 3D model of the workspace based on the potential ergonomic risk.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). As an example, a user could practically in their mind with pen and paper assess physiological angles of a person (e.g., elbow joints, knee joints, back arching, etc.) as someone interacts with a workspace in a 3D environment during a simulation in which gravity is applied (e.g., via observing the simulation on a display), identify a potential ergonomic risk by comparing the physiological angles relative to an anthropometric standard, and cause the risk to be presented (e.g., writing it down). For instance, the user could readily identify a potential ergonomic risk when one of the physiological angles exceeds a corresponding threshold angle for the body part. Furthermore, a user could practically perform such steps repeatedly until a potential ergonomic risk is below a predetermined threshold. For example, upon the user determining that a potential ergonomic risk exists based on comparing one or more of the physiological angles to the anthropometric standard, the user could determine a modification to the workspace and then reassess the physiological angles and ergonomic risk after implementation of the modification (and repeatedly perform such steps until the risk is below a threshold).
These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Claims directed to “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’’ are abstract. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, the underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because they relate to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The underlined limitations are similar to a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 7, 10, 11, 14, and 21 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claim 7 recites how the physiological angles correspond to joint angles, posture angles, or both of the user which just further defines the "mental processes" discussed above.
-Claims 10-11 call for generating different types of ergonomic reports indicating ergonomic risk to the user as a number of instances per unit time or percentage of time that the physiological angles are not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 14 calls for generating a workspace change recommendation for the workspace based at least in part on the potential ergonomic risk that is identified which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 21 calls for presenting the ergonomic risk during the simulating which is practically perforable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
An ergonomic assessment tool, comprising:
one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
one or more memory devices storing a program, which, when executed by any combination of the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform an operation, the operation comprising (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
inputting a three-dimensional (3D) model of a workspace into a 3D environment of the ergonomic assessment tool (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
repeatedly and automatically (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), until a potential ergonomic risk is below a predetermined threshold:
simulating, in the 3D environment, a user interacting with the workspace (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
applying, during the simulating, a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
assessing, during the simulating, one or more physiological angles of the user as the user interacts with the workspace in the 3D environment, wherein the one or more physiological angles are based on the simulated gravity on the user in the 3D environment;
identifying the potential ergonomic risk by comparing the one or more physiological angles relative to an anthropometric standard;
causing, when identified, the potential ergonomic risk to be presented; and
modifying the 3D model of the workspace based on the potential ergonomic risk (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the tool including processors, memory, and program and the various steps being performed "automatically," the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of inputting the 3D model of a workspace into a 3D environment of the ergonomic assessment tool, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the additional limitations of simulating the user interacting with the workspace in the 3D environment, applying a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset, and modifying the 3D model of the workspace based on the potential ergonomic risk, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These additional limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the user interaction and gravity modifying simulation and workspace modification actually occur. Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 15 and analogous independent claims 1 and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 15 and analogous independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claims 3 and 17 recite how presenting the potential ergonomic risk includes presenting, on a display in real time, a visual cue indicating that a first physiological angle of the one or more physiological angles is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 4 recites how the visual cue indicating that the first physiological angle is not within the acceptable range of the anthropometric standard is presented as a color indicator positioned adjacent the first physiological angle of the user on the display that changes from a first color to a second color when the first physiological angle is not within the acceptable range of the anthropometric standard which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 5 and 18 call for presenting, on a display during the simulating, the one or more physiological angles adjacent respective joints of the user which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 6 and 18 recite how the one or more physiological angles dynamically update on the display as the user moves through a range of motion which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 8 recites how the anthropometric standard is adjustable in real time during the simulating which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 9 calls for exporting an ergonomic data sheet that corresponds the one or more physiological angles relative to the anthropometric standard through a range of motion of the user which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
-Claims 10-11 recite how the ergonomic data sheet is exported to an ergonomic report generator which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 12 calls for acquiring motion data from an actual user performing an actual range of motion which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and recites how a range of motion that the user performs to interact with the workspace in the 3D environment mimics the actual range of motion which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional limitation provides only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the range of motion mimics the actual range of motion.
-Claims 13 and 19 recite how the workspace is modified in real time or modifiable in real time during the simulating which again amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional limitation provides only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the workspace is modifiable in real time during the simulating. This limitation also amounts to generic instructions to "apply" the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 22 calls for modifying the 3D model during the simulating by simulating replacement, resizing, and/or repositioning of a component from a library of components for the workspace. Again however, this claim does not result how the component replacement/resizing/repositioning is accomplished which just amounts to a result-oriented solution and thus merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the tool including processors, memory, and program and the various steps being performed "automatically," the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of simulating the user interacting with the workspace in the 3D environment, applying a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset, and modifying the 3D model of the workspace based on the potential ergonomic risk, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These additional limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the user interaction and gravity modifying simulation and workspace modification actually occur. Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to inputting the 3D model of a workspace into a 3D environment of the ergonomic assessment tool which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the Examiner has reevaluated such limitation and determined it to not be unconventional as it merely consists of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claims 3 and 17 recite how presenting the potential ergonomic risk includes presenting, on a display in real time, a visual cue indicating that a first physiological angle of the one or more physiological angles is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 4 recites how the visual cue indicating that the first physiological angle is not within the acceptable range of the anthropometric standard is presented as a color indicator positioned adjacent the first physiological angle of the user on the display that changes from a first color to a second color when the first physiological angle is not within the acceptable range of the anthropometric standard which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 5 and 18 call for presenting, on a display during the simulating, the one or more physiological angles adjacent respective joints of the user which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 6 and 18 recite how the one or more physiological angles dynamically update on the display as the user moves through a range of motion which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 8 recites how the anthropometric standard is adjustable in real time during the simulating which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 9 calls for exporting an ergonomic data sheet that corresponds the one or more physiological angles relative to the anthropometric standard through a range of motion of the user which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
-Claims 10-11 recite how the ergonomic data sheet is exported to an ergonomic report generator which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 12 calls for acquiring motion data from an actual user performing an actual range of motion which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and recites how a range of motion that the user performs to interact with the workspace in the 3D environment mimics the actual range of motion which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional limitation provides only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the range of motion mimics the actual range of motion.
-Claims 13 and 19 recite how the workspace is modified in real time or modifiable in real time during the simulating which again amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional limitation provides only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the workspace is modifiable in real time during the simulating. This limitation also amounts to generic instructions to "apply" the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 22 calls for modifying the 3D model during the simulating by simulating replacement, resizing, and/or repositioning of a component from a library of components for the workspace. Again however, this claim does not result how the component replacement/resizing/repositioning is accomplished which just amounts to a result-oriented solution and thus merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 1, 3-15, and 17-22 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177228 to Bourret et al. ("Bourret") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,110 to Bourke et al. ("Bourke") and U.S. Patent No. 8,005,656 to Ankory et al. ("Ankory"):
Regarding claim 1, Bourret discloses a method, comprising:
inputting a three-dimensional (3D) model of a workspace into a 3D environment of an ergonomic assessment tool ([0035]-[0036] discloses evaluating a real-world environment of a work place (3D model of a workspace) in a 3D environment of an Ergonomic Workplace Design (EWD) application while Figure 11 and [0075] illustrate/disclose a computer-based system 1110 used to assess ergonomic risk (collectively, an "ergonomic assessment tool")); and
…automatically ([0036], [0067], [0073] discloses an automatic simulation, risk assessment, and suggestion generation process)…,
simulating, in the 3D environment, a user interacting with the workspace ([0036] discuss how a manikin (digital human model per [0006], [0007], [0033]) can perform an action in the 3D environment (simulating a user interacting with the workspace, e.g., see Figure 9));
…
assessing, during the simulating, one or more physiological angles of the user as the user interacts with the workspace in the 3D environment ([0040], [0044], [0062]-[0064], [0072] discusses determining/analyzing/assessing joint angles (physiological angles) of the user/manikin in the 3D environment), …;
identifying a potential ergonomic risk by comparing the one or more physiological angles relative to an anthropometric standard ([0044] and [0062]-[0064] discusses determining joint risks (ergonomic risk) by comparing the physiological angles to a threshold for the joint (anthropometric standard) and International standards (anthropometric standards); also, [0072] discloses various standards);
presenting, when identified, the potential ergonomic risk ([0065]-[0067] and Figures 8-9 discuss outputting/presenting/displaying indications of the identified risks); and
…
While Bourret also discloses ([0036]-[0037], [0048], [0068]-[0074]) automatically generating suggested changes/modifications to the workspace to reduce the ergonomic risk, Bourret might be silent regarding modifying the 3D model of the workspace based on the potential ergonomic risk, and the simulating, assessing, identifying, presenting, and modifying occurring repeatedly, until the potential ergonomic risk is below a predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Bourke teaches (17:15-53 and 26:4-45) that it was known in the workspace design art to automatically and repeatedly simulate a workspace component being interacted with by a user, assess a risk of injury to the user during the simulation (which includes determining whether a joint angle exceeds a corresponding threshold/standard per 23:64-24:12), present the potential risk (16:13-21), and simulate a change in the workspace component that is configured to reduce the potential risk to the user until the potential risk has reduced by a threshold amount (is below a predetermined threshold). This arrangement advantageously determines and facilitates changes to physical components within a workspace that are configured to increase the efficiency of the workspace while simultaneously ensuring that the health and safety of subjects is paramount (4:7-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 3D model of the workspace based on the potential ergonomic risk performed and repeatedly perform the simulating, assessing, identifying, presenting, and modifying until the potential ergonomic risk is below a predetermined threshold similar to as taught by Bourke to advantageously determine and facilitate changes to physical components within a workspace that are configured to increase the efficiency of the workspace while simultaneously ensuring that the health and safety of subjects is paramount. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, the Bourret/Bourke combination appears to be silent regarding applying, during the simulating, a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset.
Nevertheless, Ankory teaches (Abstract; 12:31-57) that it was known in the design simulation art to provide a design model/space (e.g., a 3D environment per 7:41-42; 37:46); simulate a behavior of at least one digital user in said model; simulate at least one environmental effect modulated by said model and affecting or affected by at least one of said at least one digital user (including employing various types of physics modeling methods to selectively apply gravity to the user per 37:7-8; 38:22-26,42-44); and evaluate the design model based on a result of the simulations including assessing ergonomic impacts on the users. Such physics modeling methods would necessarily involve using math/equations/code to analyze various forces/moments/characteristics/etc. of the 3D environment (i.e., modeling the physics of the 3D environment) to understand/analyze how gravity would be applied in the environment, where use of such math/equations/code would necessarily result in some dataset ("physics-based gravity dataset") representing the calculations/intermediate/final results of the math/equations/code). This system advantageously provides a more realistic simulation by taking into account forces (e.g., gravity) that would be acting on the user in a real-world situation thereby improving the accuracy of determined assessments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied, during the simulating, a gravity modifier so as to simulate gravity on the user in the 3D environment based on a physics-based gravity dataset in the system of the Bourret/Bourke combination as taught by Ankory to advantageously provide a more realistic simulation by taking into account forces (e.g., gravity) that would be acting on the user in a real-world situation thereby improving the accuracy of determined assessments and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
As modified by Ankory, the assessed physiological angles as already disclosed by Bourret in relation to claim 1 would thus be based on the simulated gravity on the user in the 3D environment.
Regarding claim 3, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein presenting the potential ergonomic risk comprises presenting, on a display in real time, a visual cue indicating that a first physiological angle of the one or more physiological angles is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard (Figures 8-9 and [0065]-[0067] of Bourret illustrate/discuss automatically presenting (i.e., in "real time") indications/visual cues of "high risk" joint angles (i.e., that the one or more physiological angles are not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard)).
Regarding claim 5, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including presenting, on a display during the simulating, the one or more physiological angles, the one or more physiological angles are presented adjacent respective joints of the user (Figure 9 and [0067] of Bourret illustrates/discusses automatically presenting (i.e., in "real time") indications/visual cues of joint angles adjacent joints of the user on a display during the simulating).
Regarding claim 7, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein the one or more physiological angles correspond to joint angles, posture angles, or both, of the user (the angles are joint angles per [0061]-[0064] of Bourret).
Regarding claim 14, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including generating a workspace change recommendation for the workspace based at least in part on the potential ergonomic risk that is identified ([0061] and [0065]-[0069] of Bourret discuss generating various suggestions to the workspace (e.g., lighten object load, move object, etc.) based on the determine level of ergonomic risk).
Regarding claim 15, Bourret discloses an ergonomic assessment tool (computer-based system 1110 in Figure 11 that assesses ergonomic risk per [0075]), comprising:
one or more processors (CPU 1112 in Figure 11);
one or more memory devices (memory 1115 and/or storage 1114) storing a program, which, when executed by any combination of the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform an operation ([0075] discloses instructions (program) executable by the CPU 112).
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are disclosed by the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Claim 17 is disclosed by the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination as discussed above in relation to claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 15, further including wherein the workspace is modifiable in real time during the simulating ([0047]-[0048] of Bourret discloses how a user can use GUI 220 in Figure 2 to adjust parameters of the workspace (e.g., bolts, screwdriver, assembly) and then posture for the manikin is automatically generated (workspace modifiable during the simulating)).
Claim 20 is disclosed by the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including presenting the potential ergonomic risk during the simulating
([0065]-[0067] and Figures 8-9 of Bourrett discuss/illustrate outputting/presenting/displaying indications of the identified risks).
Regarding claim 22, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including modifying the 3D model during the simulating by simulating at least one of the following for a component of the workspace selected from a library of components: replacement, resizing, or repositioning (17:15-34 of Bourke discloses how operator management module (OMM) 102 can simulate a change in a component of a 3D workspace (one of a plurality/collection/number of components per 14:4-11) that is configured to reduce the potential risk to the user, such as increasing a height at which a user computing device is provide (a resizing/repositioning); furthermore, the OMM 102 is implemented by operator management computer 420 which includes data store 432 having database/data structures/etc., for storing/retaining information such as data related to motion assessments per 19:4-26, 20:6-17, and Figure 4; the various components that can be analyzed/simulated by the OMM 102 would thus be digitally stored in the data store/database/structure 432 as a "library" that can be accessed; this arrangement advantageously determines and facilitates changes to physical components within a workspace that are configured to increase the efficiency of the workspace while simultaneously ensuring that the health and safety of subjects is paramount (4:7-23); similar to as discussed previously, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 3D model during the simulating by simulating at least one of replacement, resizing, or repositioning for a component of the workspace selected from a library of components as taught by Bourke to advantageously determine and facilitate changes to physical components within a workspace that are configured to increase the efficiency of the workspace while simultaneously ensuring that the health and safety of subjects is paramount. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177228 to Bourret et al. ("Bourret") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,110 to Bourke et al. ("Bourke") and U.S. Patent No. 8,005,656 to Ankory et al. ("Ankory"), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2006/0166737 to Bentley ("Bentley")
Regarding claim 4, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 3, further including wherein the visual cue indicating that the first physiological angle is not within the acceptable range of the anthropometric standard is presented as a color indicator positioned adjacent the first physiological angle of the user on the display (Figure 9 and [0067] of Bourret illustrate/discuss how the visual cue/indicator regarding the high risk (i.e., that the physiological angle is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard) can be color coded adjacent the angle of the user on the display (i.e., adjacent the user's shoulder), …
Furthermore, while Bourret discloses ([0065]-[0067]) how the indicator/visual cue can be color coded to indicate risk level such as green for low risk (first color), yellow (second color)(not within acceptable range for the anthropometric standard) for medium risk, and red (third color)(not within acceptable range for the anthropometric standard) for high risk, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination might be silent regarding the color indicator specifically changing from a first color to a second color when the first physiological angle is not within the acceptable range of the anthropometric standard.
Nevertheless, Bentley teaches ([0035]) that it was known in the biomechanical art for a color on a graphical display screen to change when a user's shoulders rotate past an ideal rotation angle by more than a predetermined error (when a physiological angle is not within an acceptable range); this arrangement advantageously provides a visual indication in real-time that a physiological angle of a user has exceeded a safe range thereby allowing for corrective actions to be taken.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the color indicator of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination to change from a first color to a second color when the first physiological angle is not within the acceptable range of the anthropometric standard as taught by Bentley to advantageously provide a visual indication in real-time that a physiological angle of a user has exceeded a safe range thereby allowing for corrective actions to be taken and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177228 to Bourret et al. ("Bourret") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,110 to Bourke et al. ("Bourke") and U.S. Patent No. 8,005,656 to Ankory et al. ("Ankory"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0332128 to Miles et al. ("Miles"):
Regarding claim 6, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 5, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the one or more physiological angles dynamically update on the display as the user moves through a range of motion.
Nevertheless, Miles teaches (Figure 15, [0655], [0749]) that it was known in the biomechanical art to update on a display a physiological angle of a user's joint as the user moves through a range of motion as part of a computer simulation to advantageously facilitate understanding of the user's range of motion relative to the user's joint thereby allowing for development of user-specific components in the real-world compatible with the range of motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more physiological angles to dynamically update on the display as the user moves through a range of motion in the system of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination as taught by Miles to advantageously facilitate understanding of the user's range of motion relative to the user's joint thereby allowing for development of user-specific components/items in the real-world (e.g., in the workspace) compatible with the range of motion and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 18 is rejected in view of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory/Miles combination as discussed above in relation to claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177228 to Bourret et al. ("Bourret") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,110 to Bourke et al. ("Bourke") and U.S. Patent No. 8,005,656 to Ankory et al. ("Ankory"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0329043 to Sharma ("Sharma"):
Regarding claim 8, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the anthropometric standard is adjustable in real time during the simulating.
Nevertheless, Sharma teaches ([0033], [0079], [0124) that it was known in the user monitoring art for a user to update a threshold used to calculate and display a patient risk score in real time thereby allowing users to customize risk score calculations for particular circumstances and increasing the utility of the application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the threshold/anthropometric standard of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination to be adjustable in real time during the simulating similar to as taught by Sharma to advantageously allow users to customize risk score calculations for particular circumstances and increase the utility of the application and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177228 to Bourret et al. ("Bourret") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,110 to Bourke et al. ("Bourke") and U.S. Patent No. 8,005,656 to Ankory et al. ("Ankory"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0277286 to Belson et al. ("Belson"):
Regarding claim 9, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein presenting the potential ergonomic risk comprises exporting an ergonomic data sheet that corresponds the one or more physiological angles relative to the anthropometric standard (Figures 8-9 of Bourret disclose display of an ergonomic report which would be generated based on the analysis of [0061]-[0064] (ergonomic data sheet) that corresponds the physiological angle (e.g., left shoulder angle) to risk level (which is related to a threshold for the joint (anthropometric standard) and International standards (anthropometric standards) per [0061]-[0064] and [0072]; to generate the "ergonomic report," the "ergonomic data sheet" is "exported" (sent, transmitted, etc.) to instructions/code of the computing system 1110 to generate the ergonomic report)…
However, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination might be silent regarding the physiological angle(s) being corresponded relative to the anthropometric standard through a range of motion of the user.
Nevertheless, Belson teaches ([0054]-[0055], [0101]-[0104], and Figures 3A-3B) that it was known in the biomechanical analysis art to generate and transmit (export) an analysis (ergonomic data sheet) that includes physiological angles of a user's joint (e.g., of a knee per [0054]) and warnings/risks 307a (which relate to a predetermined threshold (anthropometric standard) per the Abstract)) through a range of motion of the user (correspond the one or more physiological angles relative to the anthropometric standard through a range of motion of the user). This arrangement advantageously allows users to conveniently review a summary of a user's joint metrics relative to risk thresholds/standards through a ROM to allow any necessary corrective actions to be taken thereby improving user outcomes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the exported data sheet of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination to correspond the one or more physiological angles relative to the anthropometric standard through a range of motion of the user as taught by Belson to advantageously allow users to conveniently review a summary of a user's joint metrics relative to risk thresholds/standards through a ROM to allow any necessary corrective actions to be taken thereby improving user outcomes and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177228 to Bourret et al. ("Bourret") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,110 to Bourke et al. ("Bourke"), U.S. Patent No. 8,005,656 to Ankory et al. ("Ankory"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0277286 to Belson et al. ("Belson"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0245806 to Elhawary et al. ("Elhawary"):
Regarding claim 10, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory/Belson combination discloses the method of claim 9, further including wherein the ergonomic data sheet is exported to an ergonomic report generator that generates an ergonomic report that indicates the potential ergonomic risk to the user (as noted above, Figures 8-9 of Bourret disclose display of an ergonomic report which would be generated based on the analysis of [0061]-[0064] (ergonomic data sheet) that corresponds the physiological angle (e.g., left shoulder angle) to risk level (which is related to a threshold for the joint (anthropometric standard) and International standards (anthropometric standards) per [0061]-[0064] and [0072]; to generate the "ergonomic report," the "ergonomic data sheet" is "exported" (sent, transmitted, etc.) to instructions/code ("ergonomic report generator") of the computing system 1110 to generate the ergonomic report)…
However, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory/Belson combination might be silent regarding the potential ergonomic risk indicated in the ergonomic report including a number of instances per unit of time that at least one of the one or more first physiological angles of the one or more physiological angles is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard.
Nevertheless, Elhawary teaches ([0183]) that it was known in the workplace safety art to generate visualizations that summary metrics over an evaluation period including a total number of high risk lifts performed in a specified period of time, where a high risk lift occurs when a back angle (physiological angle) of a user exceeds a corresponding threshold (anthropometric standard) per [0073], [0179] (the physiological angle is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard). This arrangement advantageously allows users to assess workplace safety and productivity over any appropriate time period thereby allowing for any needed corrections/adjustment to be made ([0183]-[0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ergonomic report of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory/Belson combination to include a number of instances per unit of time that at least one of the one or more first physiological angles of the one or more physiological angles is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard as taught by Elhawary to advantageously allow users to assess workplace safety and productivity over any appropriate time period thereby allowing for any needed corrections/adjustment to be made. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 11, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory/Belson combination discloses the method of claim 9, further including wherein the ergonomic data sheet is exported to an ergonomic report generator that generates an ergonomic report that indicates the potential ergonomic risk to the user (as noted above, Figures 8-9 of Bourret disclose display of an ergonomic report which would be generated based on the analysis of [0061]-[0064] (ergonomic data sheet) that corresponds the physiological angle (e.g., left shoulder angle) to risk level (which is related to a threshold for the joint (anthropometric standard) and International standards (anthropometric standards) per [0061]-[0064] and [0072]; to generate the "ergonomic report," the "ergonomic data sheet" is "exported" (sent, transmitted, etc.) to instructions/code ("ergonomic report generator") of the computing system 1110 to generate the ergonomic report)…
However, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory/Belson combination might be silent regarding the potential ergonomic risk indicated in the ergonomic report including a percentage of time during the simulating that at least one of the one or more first physiological angles of the one or more physiological angles is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard.
Nevertheless, Elhawary teaches ([0183]) that it was known in the workplace safety art to generate visualizations that summary metrics over an evaluation period including a percentage of high risk lifts performed in a specified period of time, where a high risk lift occurs when a back angle (physiological angle) of a user exceeds a corresponding threshold (anthropometric standard) per [0073], [0179] (the physiological angle is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard). This arrangement advantageously allows users to assess workplace safety and productivity over any appropriate time period thereby allowing for any needed corrections/adjustment to be made ([0183]-[0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ergonomic report of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory/Belson combination to include a percentage of time during the simulating that at least one of the one or more first physiological angles of the one or more physiological angles is not within an acceptable range of the anthropometric standard as taught by Elhawary to advantageously allow users to assess workplace safety and productivity over any appropriate time period thereby allowing for any needed corrections/adjustment to be made. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177228 to Bourret et al. ("Bourret") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,110 to Bourke et al. ("Bourke") and U.S. Patent No. 8,005,656 to Ankory et al. ("Ankory"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0046056 to Rosenberg et al. ("Rosenberg"):
Regarding claim 12, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including obtaining processing planning data including measurements from sensors in a real-world environment including physical characteristics of the user [0010] and [0039]).
However, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination appears to be silent regarding acquiring motion data from an actual user performing an actual range of motion, and wherein a range of motion that the user performs to interact with the workspace in the 3D environment mimics the actual range of motion.
Nevertheless, Rosenberg teaches ([0016]-[0020]) that it was known in the biomechanical analysis art to utilize sensors to acquire human motion tracking data from an actual human (where the human's body would be moving through some range of motion), convert the motion tracking data to computer-usable data, and feed the data into a virtual world application (which is a 3D environment as [0022] discloses how user movement through three dimensions is captured) such that the ROM of the human in the virtual world mimics the ROM of the actual human to advantageously facilitate analysis of interactions with a virtual scenario such as virtual equipment, virtual building structures, etc. without requiring use of conventional input devices such as mouse/keyboard ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have acquired motion data from an actual user performing an actual range of motion such that a range of motion that the user performs to interact with the workspace in the 3D environment mimics the actual range of motion in the system of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination as taught by Rosenberg to advantageously facilitate analysis of interactions with a virtual scenario such as virtual equipment, virtual building structures, etc. without requiring use of conventional input devices such as mouse/keyboard and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0177228 to Bourret et al. ("Bourret") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,110 to Bourke et al. ("Bourke") and U.S. Patent No. 8,005,656 to Ankory et al. ("Ankory"), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,762,460 to Garnavi et al. ("Garnavi"):
Regarding claim 13, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein the workspace is modified ([0046] and [0074] of Bourret discuss implementation of actionable real-world changes that improves real-world ergonomics in the real-world environment (workstation per Abstract))…
However, the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination might be silent regarding the workspace being modified in real time.
Nevertheless, Garnavi teaches (claim 1) that it was known in the healthcare informatics and workplace design art to automatically (i.e., in real-time) adjust a setting of a device in an area of high risk in a workplace (i.e., modify the workspace in real-time) to advantageously reduce a degree of injury risk to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the workspace of the Bourret/Bourke/Ankory combination to be modified in real-time as taught by Garnavi to advantageously reduce a degree of injury risk to a user. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686