DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendments dated 1/29/26 are hereby entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (“[a] mobile platform”) and a method step for using that apparatus (“said robotic mechanism being controlled by the processing unit”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173,05(p)(II).
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, and/or a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claim 1, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a method] for physical stimulation and rehabilitation, comprising:
[…]
[receiving data regarding] the position of a user in relation to a projection unit (5) and a projection surface (6); and
[receiving data regarding] user-generated key movements;
- Convert[ing] key movements detected […] into […] instructions; and
[…] produce audiovisual content from [the] instructions;
[providing a visual display of] the audiovisual content […];
[…].
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, the rules of a game, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a mobile base comprising a robotic mechanism, a sensory unit, a processing unit, a projection unit, and an actuation mechanism, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a mobile base comprising a robotic mechanism, a sensory unit, a processing unit, a projection unit, and an actuation mechanism, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20230241483 A1 by Yoo (“Yoo”), in view of PGPUB US 20200368616 A1 by Delamont (“Delamont”), further in view of PGPUB US 20150031459 A1 by Kim (“Kim”).
In regard to Claim 1, Yoo teaches a [m]obile platform (1) for physical stimulation and rehabilitation, characterized by comprising:
- a mobile base (9) to provide the displacement of the platform (1), and on which the following components are installed:
(see, e.g., F3, 111);
- a sensory unit (2) configured to:
(see, e.g., F1, 130 and 140);
- determine the position of a user in relation to a projection unit (5) and a projection surface (6); and
- detect user-generated key movements;
(see, e.g., p70-72);
- a processing unit (4) comprising computational requirements configured to:
(see, e.g., F1, 160);
- Convert key movements detected by the sensory unit (2) into computer program instructions; and
- Run a computer program adapted to produce audiovisual content from computer program instructions;
(see, e.g., p81);
- a projection unit (5) configured to project the audiovisual content onto the projection surface (6);
(see, e.g., F1, 120);
[…]
Furthermore, while Yoo teaches that the projector may be adjusted in order to project the image either on floor or on a wall (see, e.g., p69), it does not disclose any mechanism to do that, however, in an analogous reference Delamont teaches employing a motorized arm to adjust a projector in order to project a simulated image either on a wall or floor (see, e.g., p449 and 1027-1032);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the motorized arm taught by Delamont to the projector otherwise taught by Yoo, in order to automatically re-orient the projector from the floor to the wall and/or vice versa, when desired.
Furthermore, while Yoo teaches that the projector has wheels that may be used to move it about (see, e.g., p68), it does not disclose whereby those wheels may be powered as well as controlled, however, in an analogous reference Kim teaches that feature (see, e.g., p50);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the robotic wheels taught by Kim to the projector otherwise taught by Yoo, in order to make it easier to move the projector.
In regard to Claims 2-5, Yoo teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p82 and 86-87.
In regard to Claim 6, Yoo teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p72.
In regard to Claim 10, Yoo teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F1, 120.
In regard to Claims 11-12, Delamont teaches these limitations. See rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, in view of Delamont, in view of Kim, in view of admitted prior art.
In regard to Claims 7-8, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that such use of camera was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for the movement of a single user to be identified with an inexpensive sensor. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for the movement of a single user to be identified with an inexpensive sensor;
Furthermore, the Applicant failed to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of official notice in a prior Office action and, therefore, these claimed limitations are now admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, in view of Delamont, in view of Kim, in view of admitted prior art.
In regard to Claim 9, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that such use of a sensor and indicator were old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for the location of the projector to be ideal. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for the location of the projector to be ideal;
Furthermore, the Applicant failed to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of official notice in a prior Office action and, therefore, these claimed limitations are now admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant’s claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101 under the Mayo test as claiming abstract ideas and without claiming “significantly more”. The Mayo test is a legal test and, as such, the question in regard to making such a rejection is what is the most analogous case law in terms of identifying whether an applicant has claimed patent eligible versus ineligible subject matter. To that end, the 101 rejections made supra cite legal authorities in regard to why the Applicant is alleged to have claimed patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant, however, cites no legal authority in support of its arguments regarding the 101 rejections and there is, effectively, no way to respond to Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues on page 7 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
206
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Collecting/analyzing data (e.g., user position and movement) and providing outputs regarding that data (e.g., projecting audiovisual content) are abstract ideas. See the CAFC’s decisions in, e.g., Electric Power Group and/or Yousician (non-precedential) in that regard. Applicant does not claim any particular actuation of the arms and rotating joints but, instead, a mechanism “configured” to do so. Likewise, Applicant does not claim any particular robotic navigation of the mobile platform but, instead, that the mobile base is capable of doing so. Applicant’s claimed invention is analogous, in this regard, to the garage door controller/motor claimed in Chamberlain in terms of various devices are claimed but no particular programming is claimed in regard to how they must function.
Applicant further argues on page 7 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, Applicant does not, in fact, claims a “mobile rehabilitation apparatus that physically alters the user’s environment” (emphasis original) as there is nothing required by the claimed limitations in regard to “altering the user’s environment”, physically or otherwise. Applicant’s argument regarding Yousician is not persuasive to the extent that Applicant likewise claims collecting sensor data regarding human movements and providing some differential visual display based on that data and is, thereby, closely analogous to Yousician.
Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application” and thereby claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Mayo test is a legal test and “practical application” is not part of the Mayo test but is, instead, a burden placed on examiners by the Office when they are making a 101 rejection employing the Mayo test. Simply invoking “practical application” but without citing specific legal authority in support of Applicant’s argument that it has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the two-part Mayo test, therefore, does not provide a proper basis or rationale as to why the 101 rejection being made is allegedly deficient. Applicant also argues that it has claimed “significantly more” but, likewise, Applicant cites no relevant legal authority in support of its argument so there is no way to respond to that argument.
Applicant further argues on page 9 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image3.png
326
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The 101 rejection properly cites to Applicant’s specification as evidence that the elements claimed in addition to its abstract idea are WRC:
A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements…in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
What is more, Applicant’s claimed invention does not result in any improvement to the devices claimed in addition to Applicant’s claimed invention qua devices. Applicant’s claimed sensors, e.g., do not yield more accurate results, nor does Applicant’s claimed processing unit run faster, nor does Applicant’s claimed projector use less power, nor does Applicant’s claimed actuation mechanism operate more precisely.
Applicant further argues on page 11 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image4.png
336
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because none of these functions are required by Applicant’s claims. Nothing, in other words, is claimed in regard to “[a]utonomously maintain an optimal distance and angle relative to the user or the projection surface”, nor is claimed in regard to “moving in pre-programmed patterns that the user must follow” nor is claimed in regard to “moving itself from a charging/storage station to the therapy area”, or the like.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715