CTNF 18/842,171 CTNF 88999 DETAILED ACTION Remarks 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The preliminary amendment filed 8/28/24 is entered. Claims 1-9 are pending and under examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. STEP 1 = YES: The claimed invention is to a process and product, and thus fall under one of the four statutory categories ( Step 1: YES) . STEP 2A, Prong 1 = YES: The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Moreover, the claims recite steps akin to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which the court in Electric Power Group held to recite a mental process. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This includes: A method for monitoring a posture of a person working on an electronic device, the method comprising: reading an image from a camera associated with the electronic device (mental process, observation and evaluation/analysis) ; determining a value representing the posture shown in the image (mental process, observation and evaluation/analysis) ; and transmitting a warning signal if the value falls in a warning range (mental process, judgement/opinion, e.g., displaying results of collection and analysis, and interaction between individuals, e.g., teaching) ; wherein determining the value includes analyzing relative apparent positions of body reference points in the image (see judicial exception identified above) ; wherein the body reference points are selected from: ears, jaw, shoulder, and sternum (see judicial exception identified above) ; wherein the relative apparent position comprises a vertical distance between the reference points (see judicial exception identified above) ; determining the relative apparent position for two sides of the body (mental process, observation and evaluation/analysis) ; and wherein identifying a deviating posture includes comparing the two sides (***) ; determining an altitude angle at which the camera is recording the person from the image (mental process, observation and evaluation/analysis) ; and correcting the position of the reference points using the altitude angle (mental process, observation and evaluation/analysis) ; determining the posture for a sequence of images from the camera (mental process, observation and evaluation/analysis) ; and discarding any of images of the sequence having a high probability of error (mental process, evaluation/analysis) ; …determining the posture of a person working on an electronic device, comprising:… reads an image from a camera associated with the electronic device (mental process, observation and evaluation/analysis) ; determines a value representing the posture shown in the image (mental process, observation and evaluation/analysis) ; and transmits a warning signal if the value falls in a warning range (mental process, judgement/opinion, e.g., displaying results of collection and analysis, and interaction between individuals, e.g., teaching) . The steps identified above are akin to mental processes (e.g., steps a teacher would take to observe and evaluate a student’s posture), and/or organizing human activity (e.g., steps a teach would take to notify the student when a value associated with their posture falls outside a desired posture), and thus fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Additionally, the specification of this application expressly describes the disclosed invention as “easy to determine manually,” thus further demonstrating the claims recited a mental process. SPEC 6. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) to help them complete the recited steps above, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea ( Step 2A, Prong 1: YES) . STEP 2A, Prong 2 = NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to defining a computer environment to implement the abstract idea above (i.e., An arrangement…comprising: a camera associated with the electronic device for image transmission purposes; a program running on the electronic device to evaluate an image received from the camera; wherein the program: performs the judicial exceptions identified under Prong 1), they are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. The claims are silent as to any specific technical detail for how the recited computer environment achieves the claimed operations. Likewise, the recites camera(s) are merely recited as a source of the images, with no further technical detail defining how they accomplish this result. Rather, the generic manner which these additional elements are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use, using camera(s) to generically collect the images, and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to a physical component for providing data collection (i.e., using a camera or at least two cameras to collect images), the claims do not recite a particular configuration of the camera structure. Rather, the claimed camera(s) are merely recited to perform insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity, i.e., capture image(s), which but for the generic recitation of the camera(s), is practically capable of being performed by human analog, e.g., by mental observation. Therefore, the use of the recited camera(s) in the claims does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to a physical component for providing data output (i.e., to the extent the term transmitting inherently requires a computer to implement, which Examiner does not concede), the claims do not recite a particular manner of transmitting or output. Rather, the claimed transmitting or data output are recited at a high level of generality without any technical detail defining either a particular machine nor an improvement in transmitting technology. Thus, to the extent transmitting is interpreted as an additional elements defining the warning as being presented in a computer environment, it amounts to insignificant post-solution data output activity. Therefore, this element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the physical components identified above does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea ( Step 2A, Prong 2: YES) . STEP 2B = NO: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as provided under Prong 2, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and for the purpose of insignificant pre and post-solution activity. Moreover, the specification of the instant application further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine and conventional functionality, which refers to elements of the computer system 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)(e.g., see pg. 10, discussing “images from the camera” as “common today”; see pg. 2, 14, and 15: only generically discussing a “warning” output as being provided or displayed in a window). Thus, the additional elements defining the field of use as a computer-implemented environment amount to merely automating a manual process using conventional equipment, which the courts have held to be insufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), and insignificant extra solution activity using one or more cameras to collect images. Therefore, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea ( Step 2B: NO) . Therefore, claims 1-9 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 (AIA) 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JAIMES 1 . Regarding claim 1, JAIMES teaches A method for monitoring a posture of a person working on an electronic device (Abstract: monitoring a computer user’s posture…in front of the computer) , the method comprising: reading an image from a camera associated with the electronic device (pg. 23, col. 2: camera is placed on top of the computer screen and the computer user is monitored by the system as he works; pg. 24, col. 1: system monitors the user’s posture) ; determining a value representing the posture shown in the image (pg. 23, col. 2: The systems uses the camera to measure the user’s posture and determine his current activity; pg. 27, col. 2: posture measurement, e.g., angle of the head and shoulders, and extract additional features; pg. 28, col. 2: measure similarity between the training examples and current posture) ; and transmitting a warning signal if the value falls in a warning range (pg. 23, col. 2: Feedback is given to the user, in real time, on the goodness of his upper body posture; pg. 24, col. 1: using an indicator on the screen, shows the user, in real time, how good (or bad) his posture is, and alarms that alert him when he has been sitting in a particular (e.g., unhealthy) posture for a long time; pg. 25, col. 2: set of thresholds; pg. 28, col. 1-2: indicator tells user how good his posture is, e.g., red indicates the user is not in good posture, e.g., leaning right or left) . Regarding claim 9, JAIMES further teaches An arrangement for determining the posture of a person working on an electronic device (Abstract: system for monitoring a computer user’s posture…in front of the computer) , comprising: a camera associated with the electronic device for image transmission purposes (pg. 25, col. 1: camera is placed on top of the computer screen to capture frontal view of the user) ;a program running on the electronic device to evaluate an image received from the camera (pg. 23, col. 2: computer user is monitored by the system; pg. 25, col. 1-2: algorithm proceeds as depicted in Figure 2. The system contains five basic components: (1) initialization; (2) training; (3) setting of alarm and activity profiles; (4) monitoring; and (5) summarization) ;wherein the program: reads an image from a camera associated with the electronic device (pg. 23, col. 2: camera is placed on top of the computer screen and the computer user is monitored by the system as he works; pg. 24, col. 1: system monitors the user’s posture) ; determines a value representing the posture shown in the image (pg. 23, col. 2: The systems uses the camera to measure the user’s posture and determine his current activity; pg. 27, col. 2: posture measurement, e.g., angle of the head and shoulders, and extract additional features; pg. 28, col. 2: measure similarity between the training examples and current posture) ; and transmits a warning signal if the value falls in a warning range (pg. 23, col. 2: Feedback is given to the user, in real time, on the goodness of his upper body posture; pg. 24, col. 1: using an indicator on the screen, shows the user, in real time, how good (or bad) his posture is, and alarms that alert him when he has been sitting in a particular (e.g., unhealthy) posture for a long time; pg. 25, col. 2: set of thresholds; pg. 28, col. 1-2: indicator tells user how good his posture is, e.g., red indicates the user is not in good posture, e.g., leaning right or left) . Regarding claim 2, JAIMES further teaches wherein determining the value includes analyzing relative apparent positions of body reference points in the image (pg. 27, col. 2: posture measurement, e.g., angle of the head and shoulders) . Regarding claim 3, JAIMES further teaches wherein the body reference points are selected from: ears, jaw, shoulder, and sternum (pg. 27, col. 2: posture measurement, e.g., angle of the head and shoulders) . Regarding claim 4, JAIMES further teaches wherein the relative apparent position comprises a vertical distance between the reference points (pg. 27, col. 2; pg. 28, col. 1: posture measurement, e.g., angle of the head and shoulders; Thus, each posture measurement determined by an angle defined by a line between two end points of the head or shoulders, which inherently comprise a vertical distance between the end points, e.g., Figure 7) . Regarding claim 5, JAIMES further teaches determining the relative apparent position for two sides of the body; and wherein identifying a deviating posture includes comparing the two sides (pg. 27, col. 2: posture measurement includes angle of the shoulders; pg. 28, col. 1: are his shoulders straight?) . Regarding claim 8, JAIMES further teaches using at least two cameras (pg. 32, col. 2: Additional cameras to monitor legs and feet using similar techniques). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA) 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors . In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JAIMES, as applied to claim 2, in view of US 2023/0103129 A1 to MORRELL. Regarding claim 6, JAIMES teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose determining an altitude angle at which the camera is recording the person from the image; and correcting the position of the reference points using the altitude angle. However, MORRELL teaches a related invention directed to automated facial measurements wherein a set of coordinate locations for a set of facial landmarks on a face of a user are extracted by processing a first image (Abstract) wherein the measurement system determines the relative scale and adjusts the measurements from the angled image appropriately (par. 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the manner of adjusting relative scale and measurements of an angled imaged, as taught by MORRELL, into the invention of JAIMES, in order to provide a more accurate measurement of the body part of interest. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JAIMES, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2020/0217513 A1 to CLAYTON. Regarding claim 7, JAIMES teaches determining the posture for a sequence of images from the camera (pg. 27, Figure 5; pg. 28, Figure 7 and 10; pg. 29, Figure 11; pg. 30, Figure 12), but does not expressly disclose ; and discarding any of images of the sequence having a high probability of error. However, CLAYTON teaches a camera system that discards images such as blurry images that are output by the camera or provide unsuitable data as requested by the controller (par. 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the discarding camera images that are blurry or unsuitable data, as taught by CLAYTON, into the invention of JAIMES, thereby applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Further, removing blurry and unsuitable images captured by a camera would have been obvious in order to ensure only high quality images are evaluated for posture of the user, thereby reducing inaccurate posture measurements. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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. 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/842,171 Page 13 Art Unit: 3715 1 Alejandro Jaimes et al., "Sit straight (and tell me what I did today): a human posture alarm and activity summarization system" CARPE '05: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Continuous archival and retrieval of personal experiences, Pages 23 - 34, https://doi.org/10.1145/1099083.1099087, 2005-11-11.
Prosecution Insights