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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on August 24, 2026 for the patent application 18/684,105 originally filed on February 15, 2024. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18 and 20-22 are amended. Claims 2 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 are pending. The first office action of March 6, 2026 and the second office action of June 18, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-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”
The claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “displaying simulated motion,” 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), which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“identify, from a plurality of linked elements of a simulated string structure, a first linked element connected by a joint to a second linked element;
determine a rotation of the second linked element with respect to the first linked element based at least in part on one or more user inputs received at the operator interface system;
determine if an angle of rotation associated with the rotation is greater than a predetermined limit for the joint; and
if the angle of rotation is greater than the predetermined limit, determine a quaternion that represents an angular deformation of the joint; and
display simulated motion of the simulated string structure based on the quaternion.”
Per claim 12:
“identifying, from a plurality of linked elements of a simulated string structure, a first linked element connected by a joint to a second linked element;
determining a rotation of the second linked element with respect to the first linked element based at least in part on one or more user inputs received;
determining if an angle of rotation associated with the rotation is greater than a predetermined limit for the joint; and
if the angle of rotation associated with the rotation is greater than the predetermined limit, determine a quaternion that represents an angular deformation of the joint; and
displaying simulated motion of the simulated string structure based on the 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,” “a memory,” “a display system,” and “an operator interface including one or more input control devices” 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,” “a memory,” “a display system,” and “an operator interface including one or more input control devices” 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.
Likewise, the element of “a display system,” is described in para. [0028], as follows:
“[0028] The display system 106 may include a single display screen, left and right eye display screens, a wearable device, and/or any other type of visual display that may generate monoscopic or stereoscopic graphical images.”
This element is also reasonably interpreted as a generic computer component as part of a generic computer system which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Finally, the element of “an operator interface including one or more input control devices” is described in para. [0026], as follows:
“[0026] …FIG. 2 illustrates the simulation system 100 which may include an operator interface system 102, a control system 104, and a display system 106. The operator interface system 102 may generally include one or more control device(s), which may be referred to as input control devices, for controlling a simulated instrument in a simulation environment. The control device(s) may include one or more of any number of a variety of input devices, such as hand grips, joysticks, trackballs, data gloves, trigger-guns, foot pedals, hand-operated controllers, voice recognition devices, touch screens, body motion or presence sensors, and other types of input devices.”
Due to the list of examples, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and as a commercially available product which also 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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on August 24, 2026 related to claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Compliance with § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Initially, this argument appears to be copied from a rejection in a different patent application (US 18/568,119) as the present claims do not recite or relate to "generating a photorealistic rendering of a cosmetic product." Furthermore, the claims do not pertain to "following rules or instructions" (as set forth in the MPEP, "In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. [in which t]he patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game [and t]he Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of 'rules for playing games', which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity") and do not recite any activity between a person and a computer that is similar to loan shopping. Accordingly, Applicant maintains that the Office Action fails to establish that the claims can reasonably be interpreted as being directed to "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.".”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. The abstract idea is not in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” As such, the argument is persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The identified claim limitations cannot reasonably be classified as "mental processes."
However, the Office Action fails to identify any portion of the specification that describes the claimed concept as being performed in the human mind. Applicant maintains that the present claims are akin to those of McRO (finding the claims were not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a technological improvement over existing animation techniques using specific rules). Similar to McRO, the claims of the present application specify a specific, concrete sequence of operations for evaluating joint angular deformation against physical elastic limits of a string structure and calcuating plastic quaternions to model physical behavior in a simulation. In this regard, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in how a dynamic simulation represents, constrains, and updates joint orientation states in a simulated string structure. As stated in McRO, "[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, like McRO, the claims of present application are not directed to an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims are not “directed to a patentable, technological improvement...designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice,” as applied to McRo. Here, Applicant’s claims can be practiced by a human without a highly specific skill set as identified in McRo. When compared to McRo, Applicant's claims are unlike the specialized claimed solution of “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators.” The Applicant’s claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.
Further, as previously indicated, “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 Applicant 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 “However, Applicant's claims do provide a technological advancement. As recited in Applicant's specification, the claimed "[s]ystems and methods for dynamic simulation of string manipulation may allow realistic clinician training for procedures such as suturing that involve manipulation of string-type structures." Furthermore, the claims apply or use the alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Claims 1 and 12, for example, as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea(s) into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant's claims do not provide a technological advancement. Instead, the Applicant’s “clinician training for procedures such as suturing” has been done in the analog by educators and instructors for decades, if not centuries. The difference here, is that the Applicant is merely applying this to a modern convenience consisting of a routine and conventional computing device while providing no advancement in computer technology. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Here, the Office Action appears to take the position that a claim can amount to significantly more only if it recites structure to demonstrate an improvement in a generic computer system. However, there is no reasonable basis for this assertion. Rather, as stated in MPEP § 2106.05:
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of
conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-
source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com,
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a
modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a
thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and
thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as
discussed in Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10
(1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); [...]
V. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional
steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a
non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer
components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global
Internet V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d
1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an
immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a
specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients
will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in
Classen Immunotherapies Inc. V. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68,
100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
As the present claims include limitations that provide an improvement in a technology or technical field (e.g., dynamic simulation of string manipulation), do recite limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, and do recite other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is conclusory. Specifically, the Applicant has provided no evidence supporting the statement that “dynamic simulation of string manipulation” is “an improvement in a technology or technical field.” Merely applying known techniques as a new data set for simulation to advance the abstract idea of “displaying simulated motion,” using a different medium, are not subject-matter eligible. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Independent claim 12 is amended in a similar manner. In this regard, the claims integrate any alleged exception(s) into a practical application. They are directed to an improvement in a specific computer-implemented technology, namely, dynamic simulation of deformable, linked elements of a simulated string structure (e.g., sutures). Furthermore, even if Step 2B of the § 101 analysis were reached, the rejection does not provide evidence that the claimed processes, particularly in the ordered combination recited, were well-understood, routine, and conventional. As such, the claims recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. Accordingly, withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1 and 12 is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, with regard to a practical application, 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.
Second, in a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of four options:
Option 1 – Statement(s) by Applicant
Option 2 – Court Decisions in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)
Option 3 – Publication(s)
Option 4 – Official Notice
Here, the Examiner has chosen to apply Option 1 – Statement(s) by Applicant as support of the rejection at step 2B of the analysis.
Statement(s) by the Applicant is/are defined as the following:
(1) An explanation based on an express statement in the specification (e.g., citation to a relevant portion of the specification) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional element(s) as conventional (or an equivalent term); as a commercially available product; or, in a way that shows the element is widely prevalent or in common use; or
(2) A statement made by an applicant during prosecution, that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
Here, the Examiner has chosen to incorporate the first definition (i.e.(1)) within the subject-matter eligibility analysis as provided above in the rejection. Specifically, the Examiner has identified that 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,” “a memory,” “a display system,” and “an operator interface including one or more input control devices” are claimed these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. The Examiner provides evidence of this by citing an express statement in the specification (e.g., citation to a relevant portion of the specification) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). This requirement is achieved by citing the Applicant’s own written description of the specification as originally filled (see above in the rejection). As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant has no such burden to establish that each dependent claim "satisfies every step of the subject-matter eligibility analysis." The burden rests with the Office to establish a prima facie case of patent ineligibility. As expressly stated in MPEP § 2106.07:
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. [...]
When making the rejection, the Office action must provide an explanation as to why each claim is unpatentable, which must be sufficiently clear and specific to provide applicant sufficient notice of the reasons for ineligibility and enable the applicant to effectively respond.
Where, as here, the Office Action offers no such analysis for the dependent claims and instead relies exclusively on their formal dependency, it has not carried its evidentiary burden as to those claims, and the rejection is legally deficient.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As evidenced by the Applicant’s argument, the Applicant’s second opportunity to point to a single dependent claim that satisfies every step of the subject-matter eligibility analysis has failed. As such, the argument continues to be unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not withdrawn.
Compliance with § 112
In view of the amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C.§112 are withdrawn.
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
Prosecution Insights