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 7/15/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (Remarks, pg. 9-10).
Applicant states the following: “As amended, the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind because they require the generation and use of machine-derived user-state indicators obtained from real-time sensor data. In particular, the claim recites an attention indicator determined using eye-tracking data generated by a user-facing camera and/or activity and physiological indicators derived from real-time data. These indicators are intermediate data structures generated from sensor outputs and used by the system to determine whether the user is ready to receive guidance.”
It is respectfully submitted that the eye tracking and the physiological indicator limitation would be likely to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the claim recites the following: “the at least one user-state indicator comprises at least one of an attention indicator determined using eye-tracking data generated by a user-facing camera, an activity indicator derived from the real-time data, and a physiological indicator derived from the real-time data.” The claim recites that the user-state indicator is at least one of eye tracking data, an activity indicator, and a physiological indicator. An activity indicator derived from real-time data can be observed and determined in the human mind. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and due to the amendments to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103.
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;
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 a current state of the user derived from the real-time data, whether at least one user-state indicator indicates that the user is ready to receive guidance when performing the first action, wherein the at least one user-state indicator comprises at least one of an attention indicator determined using eye-tracking data generated by a user-facing camera, an activity indicator derived from the real-time data, and a physiological indicator derived from the real-time data;
generating guidance for assisting the user to perform the first action in response to determining that the at least one user- state indicator indicates that the user is ready to receive guidance; 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 § 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) 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2021/0327304 A1 to Buras et al. (hereinafter Buras) in view of US Publication 2004/0183751 A1 to Dempski (hereinafter Dempski).
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 (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); and
providing the guidance to the user via the one or more IoT devices (0102-0103, Figure 1).
Buras discloses providing guidance to a user in real time when performing a first action and generating guidance for assisting the user to perform the first action where eye movement is an input to the apparatus (0102-0103, 0113, 0118, 0290), but does not explicitly disclose determining, based on a current state of the user derived from the real-time data, whether at least one user-state indicator indicates that the user is ready to receive guidance when performing the first action, wherein the at least one user-state indicator comprises at least one of an attention indicator determined using eye-tracking data generated by a user-facing camera, an activity indicator derived from the real-time data, and a physiological indicator derived from the real-time data; and
generating guidance for assisting the user to perform the first action in response to determining that the at least one user-state indicator indicates that the user is ready to receive guidance.
Dempski teaches determining, based on a current state of the user derived from the real-time data, whether at least one user-state indicator indicates that the user is ready to receive guidance when performing the first action, wherein the at least one user-state indicator comprises at least one of an attention indicator determined using eye-tracking data generated by a user-facing camera, an activity indicator derived from the real-time data, and a physiological indicator derived from the real-time data (0015-0019, 0031, Figure 1, wherein the 0.02-0.5 second amount of time an item needs to be in the field of view is considered real time, and the gaze focus mechanism to obtain guidance on tasks is considered eye-tracking data/an activity indicator); and
generating guidance for assisting the user to perform the first action in response to determining that the at least one user-state indicator indicates that the user is ready to receive guidance (0015-0019, 0031, Figure 1, displaying the data relating to the task is considered generating guidance).
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 focus mechanism of Dempski with the guidance apparatus of Buras as both concern AR based guidance apparatuses. Providing guidance on the items in the field of view based on focus as taught in Dempski in the context of medical guidance as disclosed in Buras would provide guidance more effectively based on what the user is paying attention to, improving the versatility of the apparatus.
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(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 2004/0183751 A1 to Dempski and further 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