DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-12, & 14-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 9/17/2025.
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 .
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 1-2, 6-9, 11-12, & 14-16 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 1-2, 6-9, 11-12, & 14-16 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-12, & 14-16 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, 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 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for posture determination, comprising:
a training stage of generating at least one distribution from first pieces of information representing a class of poses of one or more training subjects; and
an inference stage comprising steps of:
obtaining at least one second piece of information representing at least one pose of an inference subject; and
determining whether the inference subject has a good posture or a bad posture using a statistical anomaly detection technique based on the at least one second piece of information and the at least one distribution;
wherein the determining step comprises:
converting the at least one second piece of information to at least one anomaly score based on the at least one distribution; and
determining whether the inference subject has the good posture or the bad posture based on the at least one anomaly score,
wherein the converting step comprises:
deriving at least one feature each associated with a key body part, also referred to as a joint, of the inference subject, from the at least one second piece of information; and
converting the at least one feature to the at least one anomaly score based on the at least one distribution,
wherein converting the at least one feature to the at least one anomaly score comprises:
converting one of the at least one feature that is associated with an ith joint of the inference subject into a joint-specific anomaly score based on a relationship between a standard deviation of a distribution comprised in the at least one distribution and a difference between the feature and a mean of the distribution, wherein the distribution comprises features associated with the il joint of the one or more training subjects, and wherein the inference stage further comprises:
capturing a pose of the inference subject on a camera;
determining a degree of movement of the inference subject using a motion sensing device based on P second pieces of information that represent P poses of the inference subject, P being an integer greater than 1; and
comparing the degree of movement with a movement threshold; and
rendering an alert when determining that the degree of movement is smaller than the movement threshold and a timer has expired, or, starting the timer when determining that the degree of movement is smaller than the movement threshold and the timer has not been started, or, resetting the timer when determining that the degree of movement is greater than or equal to the movement threshold.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations” because generating a distribution from pose data, obtaining pose data from an inference subject, and using a statistical anomaly detection technique to determine posture based on pose data amounts to an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)C). The Examiner also asserts that the limitations of rendering an alert when the degree of movement is smaller than a threshold constitutes “methods of organizing human activity” because sending a notification based on a threshold is associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The underlined limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2, 6-9, 11-12, & 14-15 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2 recites training data; Claims 6-9 recites deriving features from the data and converting the feature data into a score; Claims 11-12 & 14 recites determining a degree of movement using pose data; Claim 15 recites generating an alert based on activity data. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
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 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”):
1. A computer-implemented method for posture determination, comprising:
a training stage of generating at least one distribution from first pieces of information representing a class of poses of one or more training subjects; and
an inference stage comprising steps of:
obtaining at least one second piece of information representing at least one pose of an inference subject; and
determining whether the inference subject has a good posture or a bad posture using a statistical anomaly detection technique based on the at least one second piece of information and the at least one distribution;
wherein the determining step comprises:
converting the at least one second piece of information to at least one anomaly score based on the at least one distribution; and
determining whether the inference subject has the good posture or the bad posture based on the at least one anomaly score,
wherein the converting step comprises:
deriving at least one feature each associated with a key body part, also referred to as a joint, of the inference subject, from the at least one second piece of information; and
converting the at least one feature to the at least one anomaly score based on the at least one distribution,
wherein converting the at least one feature to the at least one anomaly score comprises:
converting one of the at least one feature that is associated with an ith joint of the inference subject into a joint-specific anomaly score based on a relationship between a standard deviation of a distribution comprised in the at least one distribution and a difference between the feature and a mean of the distribution, wherein the distribution comprises features associated with the il joint of the one or more training subjects, and wherein the inference stage further comprises:
capturing a pose of the inference subject on a camera;
determining a degree of movement of the inference subject using a motion sensing device based on P second pieces of information that represent P poses of the inference subject, P being an integer greater than 1; and
comparing the degree of movement with a movement threshold; and
rendering an alert when determining that the degree of movement is smaller than the movement threshold and a timer has expired, or, starting the timer when determining that the degree of movement is smaller than the movement threshold and the timer has not been started, or, resetting the timer when determining that the degree of movement is greater than or equal to the movement threshold.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of capturing a pose of the subject using a camera, 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)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite 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:
Claim 16: These claims recite a computing system with a processor and amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea 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 1 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.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitation of capturing a pose of the subject using a camera, 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)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (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.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-12, & 14-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kurz (US11544865) teaches a user's posture condition (e.g., good/bad, slouching, leaning, 1 on a 10 point scale, etc.) is determined based on an image of the user from an image capture device on the HMD and feedback is provided at the HMD to motivate the user to move to improve his or her posture.
Parsa (US20210232810) teaches to a computer-implemented method of providing biomechanical analyses of movements of a subject is provided. A computing device generates a set of features based on three-dimensional joint location data representing positions of the subject over a plurality of time steps while performing a plurality of actions.
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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619