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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 29, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-22 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.”
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.”
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 2-11 and 13-22 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 12. Therefore, claims 1-22 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 1-22 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 2-11 and 13-22 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.
Conclusion
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 Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715