CTNF 18/572,407 CTNF 83625 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 07-05-01 AIA the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because of the following: Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A. Step 1 – Statutory Category Claims 1- 18 are directed to an apparatus, method, and program, which fall within statutory categories. The claim “computer program” do not fall within a statutory category.The claim does not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.Therefore, the claim is directed to software per se, which is non-statutory. B. Step 2A, Prong One – Claims are directed to an abstract idea The claims recite the following limitations: “acquires change information” “calculates an extension/contraction amount” “input stimulation on the basis of the calculated amount” “mapping model constructed using machine learning” “mapping model constructed using a theoretical equation” These limitations constitute (1) mathematical evaluations, (2) mental steps, and (3) generic data processing, all of which are enumerated categories of abstract ideas under MPEP §2106.04(a): Mathematical concepts (e.g., converting measured physical quantity into extension/contraction amount) Mental processes (e.g., interpreting displacement/force and estimating muscle activity) Methods of organizing human activity (e.g., receiving information and producing feedback) Data collection and analysis Claims 1–18 therefore recite an abstract idea. C. Step 2A, Prong Two – Claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application The claims merely require: generic “acquisition unit” generic “calculation unit” generic “input unit” unspecified “model constructed using machine learning” The claims do not define any: specific physical sensor structure, specific electrode configuration, specific stimulation waveform, timing, or circuitry, specific algorithm for calculating contraction amount, specific processing architecture or hardware improvement The recited “stimulation” is stated generically and is not tied to any specific implementation or technical improvement. Reciting generic functions performed by generic components does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims fail Step 2A Prong Two. D. Step 2B – Claims lack an inventive concept The claims add only generic computer components (“acquisition unit,” “calculation unit,” “input unit,” and “program”).Courts have consistently held that generic processors performing functional calculations do not supply an inventive concept. The “machine learning model” is recited as a black box without specifying: architecture, training method, dataset, algorithm merely reciting the use of ML does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1–18 lack significantly more and are rejected under §101 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. A. Functional claiming without structure Terms like: “acquisition unit” , “calculation unit”, “input unit” are recited purely by function, without structural disclosure. Purely functional claiming without structure is indefinite. B. Ambiguity in antagonistic muscle logic Phrases such as: “muscle that has not been contracted”, “corresponding to the displacement” do not provide objective criteria for identifying which muscle is being referenced under all conditions. Since the claims fail to provide clear scope, claims 1–18 are rejected under §112(b) as indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 8-11, 14-15, , 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahey (US 8285381) . [Claims 1, 17 and 18 ] Fahey teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires change information indicating a change in physical quantity related to an operation target corresponding to extension or contraction of a muscle of a site in a body of a user (column 16, lines 40-56) “Tendons connect muscles to bones, and transmit forces that arise due to muscle contraction… a stronger muscle contraction produces more tension and greater geometry change…” This describes acquiring physical-quantity change information (tendon tension/geometry) tied to muscle extension/contraction; and a calculation unit that calculates an extension/contraction amount of the muscle corresponding to the change in physical quantity on a basis of the change information (col 16, lines 45-57); “a stronger muscle contraction would alter… the electrical activity detected by the sensing electrodes…” This is the contraction-amount inference; Fahey teaches a system and a method for automated muscle stimulation which detects the muscle movement via sensors, however does not explicitly disclose the calculation an extension/contraction amount; however considering the feedback provided by the sensor of the muscle movement, an ordinary skilled artisan can take the calculation into the consideration as needed and would have been within knowledge of ordinary skilled artisan prior to the applicant’s earliest priority date of the invention. Claim 2 Input unit stimulates muscle based on calculated amount; disclosed in (col 16, lines 54-57); “electrical activity detected over or near tendons is suitable for optimization of techniques, including electrical stimulation that produce muscle contraction…” This shows the sensed contraction state being used to adjust stimulation. Claim 3 Stimulation electrode located away from sensing site (col 18, lines 44-56) : “sensors placed on a sensing pad may be outside an area defined by the stimulation electrodes.” This directly supports the “electrode in contact with a place away from the site.” Claim 4 Acquiring change information for antagonistic muscles Though antagonistic pairs are not explicitly named, the reference discloses sensing multiple muscle–tendon regions; (col 23, lines 65- col 24 lines 20), “Tendons… transmit forces that arise due to muscle contraction… stronger muscle contraction produces more tension and greater geometry change…” Tendon-force distribution inherently captures opposing muscle effects. Claim 8 Continue stimulation despite voluntary contraction (Column 16 lines 46–57): “…electrical activity detected over tendons is suitable for optimization of electrical stimulation that produce muscle contraction…” Continuous stimulation is inherent. [Claim 9] The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where intentional extension or contraction of the muscle, to which the stimulation is being input, by the user is detected, the input unit stops inputting the stimulation to the muscle (claim 28, “cease application of an electrical signal… if a threshold is exceeded.”). [Claim 10] The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the extension/contraction amount due to intentional extension or contraction of the muscle, to which the stimulation is being input, by the user exceeds a predetermined amount, the input unit stops inputting the stimulation to the muscle; Threshold-based stop condition; Column 24 lines 45-65 “energy levels… normalized and compared… strongest muscle contraction… greater geometry change…” Threshold-based control is inherent in determining strongest contraction. [Claim 11] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates the extension/contraction amount of the muscle on a basis of a model for converting the change in physical quantity indicated by the change information into the extension/contraction amount; Model converting physical change to contraction amount; Column 16 lines 35-45: “signal processing algorithms developed to expose the effects of tendon properties and geometry…” this is exactly such a conversion model. [Claim 14] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the extension/contraction amount calculated is supplied to an input device that inputs stimulation to the muscle on a basis of the extension/contraction amount; Column 17 lines 54–55: “electrical activity detected… is suitable for optimization of electrical stimulation…” [Claim 15] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the change in physical quantity includes at least one of a reaction force received by the operation target from an environment in real space or a displacement of an action unit on which the reaction force acts in the operation target; Column 176 lines 38–44 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahey (US 8285381), in view of Yamagishi (US 20250238073) . [Claim 12 and 13] the model is a mapping model constructed using machine learning, Fahey does not explicitly disclose the machine learning system or theoretical equation , however , Yamagishi teaches an information processing system where immersive sate is indicated and defined by the machine learning ( para 0060), Therefore it would have been obvious to ordinary skilled artisan prior to applicant’s earliest priority date of this application to modify Fahey to include a machine learning aspect within the system. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43 Claims 5-7 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and addressing 101 and 112 issues above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP. 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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. MASUD . AHMED Primary Examiner Art Unit 3657A /MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/572,407 Page 2 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/572,407 Page 3 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/572,407 Page 4 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/572,407 Page 5 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/572,407 Page 6 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/572,407 Page 7 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/572,407 Page 8 Art Unit: 3657