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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/28/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The aforementioned rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 concerning 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that their amendments (amending to add “guidance receptive state” as a limitation) overcome the indefinite nature of the “optimal state” limitation of previous claim 1 (Remarks, filed 5/28/2026, pg. 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear what a “guidance receptive state” is, and different reasonable people of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the limitation differently. As such, the amended claims do not establish clear metes and bounds.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are overcome at least because of the clarification offered by the amendments to the independent claims (Remarks, filed 5/28/2026, pg. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The addition of the sensors merely adds additional generic computing components to the amended claim 1. The limitations do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 concerning 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the following – “Whether alone or in combination, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, inter alia, these elements of the claims. For at least the foregoing reason, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is overcome because the prior art fails to teach each and every feature of the claims.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ultrasound probe of Buras contains at least one of an imaging sensor or an audio sensor. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is maintained.
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.
Claim 1, 9, and 16 is/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 recites the limitation “a guidance receptive state.” The optimal state recited is a relative term which does not clearly establish metes and bounds. For the purposes of this action, a guidance receptive state is interpreted as in a state to allow the operation of an IoT device.
Concerning claims 9 and 16, see the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-20 are drawn to statutory categories of invention of machine and/or method.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mathematical concepts, and/or mental process (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a set of actions that a user requires assistance performing;
identifying one or more Internet of Things (IoT) devices associated with the user;
analyzing real-time data generated by one or more sensors of the one or more IoT devices to determine a contextual surrounding of the user, wherein the one or more sensors are selected from the group consisting of image sensors, audio sensors, motion sensors, biometric sensors, location sensors, environmental sensors, and wearable sensors;
determining, in response to the analyzing, that a first contextual surrounding matches a first action of the set of actions that the user requires assistance performing;
determining, based on analyzing a current state of the user from the real-time data, if the user is in a guidance receptive state when performing the first action;
generating, in response to the user being in the guidance receptive state, guidance for assisting the user to perform the first action; and
providing the guidance to the user via the one or more IoT devices.
As indicated above, the “receiving”, “identifying”, “analyzing”, “determining”, and “generating” limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be mathematical concepts, and/or mental process. For example, a teacher or tutor could merely gather information from a student through questions and answers, perform any mathematic analysis, and use the information to provide the guidance and/or feedback described. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by a teacher using mental processes and mathematical concepts using pen and paper to provide the guidance described. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or the utilization of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). If generic computing, add this: Moreover, IoT devices/Augmented Reality (AR) devices and sensors is/are a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. An AR device is disclosed as being conventional in US Publication 2013/0120365 to Lee et al. Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reasoning. The additional limitations of “a processor; and a computer-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the processor and storing program instructions” and ” a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium” recite generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Claims 9 and 16 fail to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claims 9 and 16 are also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 16 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the mental processes and mathematical concepts and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication 2021/0327304 A1 to Buras et al. (hereinafter Buras).
Concerning claim 1,
Buras discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a set of actions that a user requires assistance performing (0101-0102);
identifying one or more Internet of Things (IoT) devices associated with the user (0102-0104, where the IOT device is considered to be and AR device);
analyzing real-time data generated by one or more sensors of the one or more IoT devices to determine a contextual surrounding of the user, wherein the one or more sensors are selected from the group consisting of image sensors, audio sensors, motion sensors, biometric sensors, location sensors, environmental sensors, and wearable sensors (0104, 0107);
determining, in response to the analyzing, that a first contextual surrounding matches a first action of the set of actions that the user requires assistance performing (0106-0107, wherein the position of peripheral devices relevant to guidance is considered to be context relating to the surroundings and the identification of peripheral devices relevant to guidance is considered to be matching as broadly claimed);
determining, based on analyzing a current state of the user from the real-time data, if the user is in a guidance receptive state when performing the first action (0099-0101, see the 112b rejection above);
generating, in response to the user being in the guidance receptive state, guidance for assisting the user to perform the first action (0099-0101, see the 112b rejection above); and providing the guidance to the user via the one or more IoT devices (0102-0103, Figure 1).
Concerning claim 2,
Buras discloses the one or more IoT devices is at least one of an augmented reality device, a virtual reality device, or a wearable smart device (0102-0104, Figure 1).
Concerning claim 3,
Buras discloses the guidance is provided to the user as a visual simulation via a display on the one or more IoT devices (0104).
Concerning claim 5,
Buras discloses the guidance is provided to the user as audio content via a speaker of the one or more IoT devices (0282, 0370, wherein an audio module requires a speaker).
Concerning claim 6,
Buras discloses the set of actions that a user requires assistance performing is chosen from a group of actions consisting of:
a speed measurement of one or more objects within the contextual surrounding of the user;
a speed measurement of the user with respect to one or more objects within the contextual surround of the user;
a distance measurement between two or more objects within the contextual surrounding of the user;
a geographic measurement of an area within the contextual surrounding of the user;
an assessment of volumetric space for receiving one or more objects within the contextual surrounding of the user; and
a mapping of one or more object within the contextual surrounding of the user (0107-0108, wherein the tracking of one or more portions of the medical equipment system described in Buras is considered to be a distance measurement between two or more objects within the contextual surrounding of the user).
Concerning claim 7,
Buras discloses collecting historical user action data from a plurality of IoT devices (0114, 0121-0124);
training, using the historical user action data, a machine learning model to identify a plurality of actions that a plurality of users require assistance performing (0114, 0121-0124); and
generating, by the machine learning model and based on the training, a guidance corpus for assisting users when performing the plurality of actions (0169-0171, The guidance corpus, as broadly claimed, is interpreted to include the iteration of the weights for the machine learning model).
Concerning claim 8,
Buras discloses monitoring the real-time data to determine if the user has successfully completed the first action according to the guidance (0150); and
in response to identifying that the user has successfully completed the first action according to the guidance, updating the guidance corpus with the generated guidance (0169-0171, The guidance corpus, as broadly claimed, is interpreted to include the iteration of the weights for the machine learning model).
Concerning claims 9-11, 13-18, and 20, see the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2021/0327304 A1 to Buras et al. in view of US Publication 2019/0130788 A1 to Seaton (hereinafter Seaton).
Concerning claim 4,
Buras does not disclose the one or more IoT devices is at least one of a virtual reality device or an augmented reality device, and wherein providing the guidance to the user comprises displaying a gamified version of the guidance to the user.
Seaton teaches the one or more IoT devices is at least one of a virtual reality device or an augmented reality device, and wherein providing the guidance to the user comprises displaying a gamified version of the guidance to the user (0030-0031, 0052).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gamification from the AR training device from Seaton with the AR medical guidance apparatus from Buras as both devices disclose AR based training and education. The gamification described in Seaton would improve the reward system for the AR medical guidance apparatus of Buras, increasing retention and focus.
Concerning claims 12 and 19, see the rejection of claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights