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 .
Acknowledgements
Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 11/25/2025.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 9
Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, amended claim 1 recites a processor configured to "extract at least one piece of work support information, according to an extraction condition, from a work support information database storing a plurality of pieces of work support information; and transmit the at least one piece of work support information extracted by the at least one first processor to augmented reality equipment to display the work support information using a retinal projection head mounted display."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
These limitations still fall under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process. For example, the steps of extracting, storing, transmitting and displaying data are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. The additional elements of database and retinal projection head mounted display are merely tools to carry out these abstract idea steps. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues on page 10
In particular, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(v) indicates that in evaluating Step 2B, an additional element or combination of elements "[adds] 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," has been found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, provides an "inventive concept," and does
not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is unclear which limitations the Applicant is saying are not well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Examiner advises the Applicant to clearly state which limitations fall under this category. In addition, the Examiner did not used the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 8/28/2025 office action. The 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.”
However, the Applicant’s claims do include well-understood, routine or conventional limitations such as transmitting data with respect to a network. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. These functions include receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws 35 USC 103.
In addition, claims 1 and 4-9 are allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Mehrotra (US20210149889A1) in further view of Tsuda (20160154620) who teaches retinal projection systems that are head mounted in further view of Nawab (20230260045) who teaches extracting weather data which includes earthquakes. Nawab also teaches the severity/intensity of the weather event as seen in figures 4A-4D. However, with respect to exemplary claims 1 and 4-9, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claims 1 and 4-9.
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 and 4-9 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1 and 4-9 are directed to a system, apparatus, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1 and 4-9 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 7 and 8 recite the limitations of
extract at least one piece of work support information, according to an extraction condition…storing a plurality of work support information…and transmit the at least one piece of work support information…to display
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of extracting, storing, transmitting, and displaying data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and apparatus, the claim language encompasses simply extracting work support information, storing work support information, and transmitting that work support information for display. Extracting, storing, and transmitting work support information for display does not require a computer and are these steps are mere data manipulation steps.
The claims also deal with worker management/tracking such as determining when a worker deviates from a work process (See para 0036 in Applicant’s specification). The work support information corresponds to information to help the worker complete a job task. This make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of system, apparatus, processor, memory, augmented reality equipment, retinal projection head mounted display, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and database.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or 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.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe extraction conditions such seismic activity of an earthquake. In addition, the dependent claims further describe what happens when a worker deviates from a work process.
Regarding step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
System, memory, processor, database, retinal projection head mounted display and augmented reality equipment
Claim 5 recites second processor, and second memory
Claim 7 recites apparatus, processor, memory, augmented reality equipment, retinal projection head mounted display, and database
Claim 8 recites method, however a method is not considered an addition element, claim 8 further recites computer, database, retinal projection head mounted display, and augmented reality equipment
Claim 9 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0054.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Schmirler (US20180130260A1) Discloses an industrial visualization system that generates and delivers virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) presentations of industrial facilities to wearable appliances to facilitate remote or enhanced interaction with automation systems within the facility.
Neeter (US20210019215A1) Discloses training one or more of machine learning algorithms in a virtual reality environment for error detection and correction and/or for employing one or more trained machine learning models in an augmented reality environment to detect and/or correct user errors associated the performance of one or more tasks.
Vadapalli (US20220300984A1) Discloses a method for automatically providing virtual support . The method may include determining a level of experience associated with the end-user and members of a support personnel for a computer application. The method may further include, in response to detecting one or more first actions on the computer application, automatically generating and providing support instructions based on virtual support documentation to an end-user based on the one or more first actions and based on the level of experience associated with the end-user.
Moriyama (US20230334396A1) Discloses a work instruction system that automatically presents a work procedure in a next step to a worker, based on current work progress by the worker.
Refsland (20090063234) Discloses a system that provides an automated and computer driven incident management system.
Tsuda (20160154620) Discloses retinal projection systems that are head mounted.
Nawab (20230260045) Discloses extracting weather data which includes earthquakes.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625