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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May 12, 2026 for the patent application 18/568,119 originally filed on December 7, 2023. Claims 1-7 are amended. Claims 1-7 are pending. The first office action of January 12, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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, 3-12 and 14-22 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), and claim 12 is directed to “a non-transitory machine-readable medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “displaying simulated motion,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“identify, from a plurality of linked elements, a first linked element connected by a joint to a second linked element;
determine a current relative rotation of the second linked element with respect to the first linked element;
determine if an angle of rotation associated with the current relative rotation is greater than a predetermined elastic limit for the joint; and
if the angle of rotation is greater than the predetermined elastic limit, determine a current plastic quaternion that represents a current angular plastic deformation of the joint; and
display simulated motion of the first and second linked elements based on the current plastic quaternion.”
Per claim 12:
“identifying, from a plurality of linked elements, a first linked element connected by a joint to a second linked element;
determining a current relative rotation of the second linked element with respect to the first linked element;
determining if an angle of rotation associated with the current relative rotation is greater than a predetermined elastic limit for the joint; and
if the angle of rotation is greater than the predetermined elastic limit, determine a current plastic quaternion that represents a current angular plastic deformation of the joint; and
displaying simulated motion of the first and second linked elements based on the current plastic quaternion.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a processor, and “a memory,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “displaying simulated motion,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a processor, and “a memory,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the elements of “a processor, and “a memory,” are described in para. [0027], as follows:
“[0027] The control system 104 includes at least one memory 108 and at least one processor 110 (which may be part of a processing unit) for generating a simulation environment and effecting control between the operator interface system 102, a simulated or virtual instrument in the simulation environment (e.g., 208, 210), and/or the display system 106. The control system 104 may include programmed instructions (e.g., stored on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium) to implement some or all of the methods described in accordance with aspects disclosed herein. While the control system 104 is shown as a single block in the simplified schematic of FIG. 2, the control system 104 may include two or more data processing circuits with one portion of the processing optionally being performed at the operator interface system 102. Any of a wide variety of centralized or distributed data processing architectures may be employed. Similarly, the programmed instructions may be implemented as a number of separate programs or subroutines, or they may be integrated into a number of other aspects of the systems described herein, including teleoperational systems. In one embodiment, the control system 104 supports wireless communication protocols such as Bluetooth, IrDA, HomeRF, IEEE 802.11, DECT, and Wireless Telemetry.” These elements are reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 3-11 and 14-22 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 3-11 and 14-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 12. Therefore, claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 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 or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitations “determine a current relative rotation of the second linked element with respect to the first linked element;” “a predetermined elastic limit for the joint,” and “determine a current plastic quaternion that represents a current angular plastic deformation of the joint.”
When a term of degree is used, there must be some standard for measuring that degree. The specification should provide some standard for measuring that degree or there should be a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree. Without a standard for measuring, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries cannot be determined. Specifically, the claim is indefinite because the limitation of “a current relative rotation,” fails to specify a degree of time and relativity such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what amount of “rotation,” is necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention.
Likewise, the claim is indefinite because the limitation of “a predetermined elastic limit,” fails to specify a degree of elasticity such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what amount is required as a “limit,” to necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention.
Further, the claim is indefinite because the limitations of “a current plastic quaternion,” and “a current angular plastic deformation,” fail to specify a degree of time, plasticity and angular deformation such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what amount of “deformation,” is necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention.
As such, claims 1 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 3-11 and 14-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 12.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on May 14, 2026 related to claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Compliance with § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Office Action characterizes the claims as "displaying simulated motion" and, from there, as "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." However, the claims neither manage people nor organize human relationships. They address how a simulation engine represents joint deformation in a linked-element model. The USPTO's eligibility guidance groups "certain methods of organizing human activity" into economic practices, commercial/legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships. The recited limitations-identify, from a plurality of linked elements, a first linked element connected by a joint to a second linked element; determine a current relative rotation of the second linked element with respect to the first linked element; determine if an angle of rotation associated with the current relative rotation is greater than a predetermined elastic limit for the joint; and determine a current plastic quaternion that represents a current angular plastic deformation of the joint-fall outside those categories. As the claims at issue are not directed to any of the enumerated methods of organizing human activity, they cannot properly be classified as "certain methods of organizing human activity.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is related to following rules or instructions, which are categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Also, MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “generating a photorealistic rendering of a cosmetic product,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Second, the identified claim limitations cannot reasonably be interested as "mental processes." The USPTO's guidance is explicit: a claim element does not "recite a mental process" when it contains "limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind," such as where "the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." Determining a relative rotation of a joint in an articulated body model of a string structure and, when an angle of rotation exceeds an elastic limit, determining a current plastic quaternion that represents a current angular plastic deformation of the joint are three-dimensional operations on orientation states in a simulation model and are not the type of observation/evaluation/judgment a person can plausibly, much less practically, carry out in real time. For example, the "plastic quaternion" itself is a four-component rotational state variable used by the dynamic simulation to represent non-elastic angular offset and that computation is inherently mathematical and computer-implemented, not a human mental step. Accordingly, the limitations of the claims cannot properly be interpreted as mental processes.
This conclusion aligns with Federal Circuit reasoning distinguishing claims that "can be performed in the human mind" (ineligible) from those that cannot practically be done mentally (eligible). Compare Electric Power Group (find the claims directed to the abstract idea of collecting/analyzing/displaying data using generic tools) with McRO (finding the claims were not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a technological improvement over existing animation techniques using specific rules). Electric Power Group involved broadly recited data monitoring processes without a specific technological improvement. It was held that the claims defined a desirable information-based result and were not limited to inventive means of achieving the result. By contrast, the present claims recite a concrete deformation computation for a complex dynamic simulation of a string structure. As such, the asserted analogy to Electric Power Group in the Office Action is misplaced. The claims of the present application specify a concrete simulation behavior-determine if an angle of rotation associated with the current relative rotation is greater than a predetermined elastic limit for the joint; and determine a current plastic quaternion that represents a current angular plastic deformation of the joint. Thus, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in how a dynamic simulation represents, constrains, and updates joint orientation states. Accordingly, the present claims are akin to McRO in which the Federal Circuit upheld software claims focused on specific technological improvements in animation stating "[b]y incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques." In this regard, the claims of present application are not directed to an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Appellant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Initially, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 is facially improper as it focuses only on the elements of "a processor" and "a memory." As stated in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2): In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
As the Office Action assesses only the "processor" and "memory" elements of the claims, the Office Action's analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 is improper.
Moreover, even if the claims were directed to a judicial exception (which they are not, as discussed above), the claims do integrate any alleged exception(s) into a practical application. In particular, the claims are directed to an improvement in a specific computer-implemented technology, namely, dynamic simulation of deformable, linked elements representing a string structure (e.g., sutures). Claim 1, for example, includes display simulated motion of the first and second linked elements based on the current plastic quaternion. This is a meaningful application that improves the modelling of joint behavior of string structures in simulations which allows "realistic clinician training for procedures such as suturing that involve manipulation of string- type structures." Applicant's specification at para. [0003]. Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception(s) into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “As the Office Action assesses only the "processor" and "memory" elements of the claims, the Office Action's analysis under Step 2B is improper. It entirely ignores that even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of generic elements in a claim directed to an abstract idea can contribute significantly more to a claim (e.g., BASCOM).
Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
The ordered combination of elements in Applicant's claims - identify, from a plurality of linked elements, a first linked element connected by a joint to a second linked element; determine a current relative rotation of the second linked element with respect to the first linked element; determine if an angle of rotation associated with the current relative rotation is greater than a predetermined elastic limit for the joint; if the angle of rotation is greater than the predetermined elastic limit, determine a current plastic quaternion that represents a current angular plastic deformation of the joint; and display simulated motion of the first and second linked elements based on the current plastic quaternion - have not been shown by the Office Action to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. In this regard, the claims do recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception(s).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Applicant has an abstract idea of “displaying simulated motion” and fails to provide any sufficient structure to demonstrate any improvement in a generic computer system (i.e. significantly more) than the abstract idea itself. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “For at least the reasons above, independent claims 1 and 12 are not directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity" nor "mental processes." They recite a specific improvement to a computer-implemented simulation. Alternatively, the claims at least integrate any alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application by improving the functioning of the simulation modelling itself. And even if Step 2B were reached, the rejection does not provide evidence that the claimed processes, particularly in the ordered combination recited, were well-understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1 and 12 is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as previously stated here and above in the rejection. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “This type of conclusory rejection of all dependent claims is facially improper. Each dependent claim's additional elements must be evaluated for whether they (i) avoid the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1), (ii) are integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), or (iii) provide an inventive concept (Step 2B). For example, the MPEP states:
Examiners should examine each claim for eligibility separately, based on the particular elements recited therein. Claims should not be judged to automatically stand or fall with similar claims in an application. For instance, one claim may be ineligible because it is directed to a judicial exception without amounting to significantly more, but another claim dependent on the first may be eligible because it recites additional elements that do amount to significantly more, or that integrate the exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II); and
The evaluation of whether the claimed invention qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter should be made on a claim-by-claim basis, because claims do not automatically rise or fall with similar claims in an application. For example, even if an independent claim is determined to be ineligible, the dependent claims may be eligible because they add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the independent claim. And conversely, even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial
exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in an application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein. MPEP § 2106.07.
As such, the Office Action fails to establish even a prima facie case that the dependent claims are patent ineligible under § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as evidenced by the Applicant’s failure to point to a single dependent claim that satisfies every step of the subject-mater eligibility analysis. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not withdrawn.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “On of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand with reasonable certainty that "a current relative rotation" is the different between the rotation of a first linked element and a second linked element at the present simulation iteration. No subjective judgment is required, and no "amount of rotation" threshold is claimed or needed to understand the boundary of the claim. Thus, "a current relative rotation" is not an indefinite term of degree.”
The Applicant continues the same line of arguments pertaining to “a predetermined elastic limit for the joint,” and “determine a current plastic quaternion that represents a current angular plastic deformation of the joint.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument supports the Examiner’s rejection. In other words, the Applicant should amend the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are not withdrawn.
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 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights