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
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/886,249, filed on 16 September 2024, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 16 September 2024 and 01 May 2026 have been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 for each IDS submitted by Applicant 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-20 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a process and independent claims 14 and 15 are directed toward a machine or manufacture, which fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “determining, via a system controller using the wireless beacon signals, an appendage path including a task stop location and a task stop time of the user appendage when performing a manual task during assembly of the part” and “detecting, via the system controller, a task error when the task stop location does not coincide with the predefined stop location within a preset location tolerance and/or the task stop time does not coincide with the predefined stop time within a preset time tolerance”. Independent claims 14 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. These limitations may be performed in the human mind. For example, a person having the beacon signals indicative of appendage locations may determine an appendage path. Further, the person having the determined appendage path and build plan can detect task errors by comparing the appendage path with the build plan. Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1, 14, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1, 14, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “a system controller”, “transmitting, via a beacon device borne by a user appendage of the user, wireless beacon signals indicative of appendage locations of the user appendage during assembly of the part within the manufacturing facility”, “receiving, via a radio-frequency (RF) transceiver located within the manufacturing facility, the wireless beacon signals transmitted by the beacon device”, “retrieving, via the system controller from a memory device, a part-specific build plan including a predefined stop location and a predefined stop time for assembling the part”, and “outputting, via the system controller responsive to detecting the task error, a first command signal to a system component to output a first audible, visual, and/or tactile alert indicative of the task error when performing the manual task”. Independent claims 14 and 15 recite substantially similar additional elements as claim 1.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The system controller, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using system controller to determine the appendage path and detect a task error is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Transmitting beacon signals via a beacon device borne by a user appendage of a user and receiving the beacon signals via a RF transceiver is data gathering. Retrieving a build plan from a memory device using a controller is also data gathering. Outputting a command signal using the controller is data outputting. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1, 14, and 15 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1 and 8 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Transmitting beacon signals using a wireless device, receiving via a RF transceiver located in a manufacturing facility the wireless beacon signals, and outputting via a system controller to a system component an audible, visual, or tactile alert are known in the art. Moschella (US 11,829,519), for example, discloses a wearable 410 having an antenna 450, which may send signals to antenna 452 of a dongle 420. Communication via the antennas may be via radiofrequency signaling. See 27:34-43. Signals from the dongle may be provided to a host computer. See 27:34-43. The wearable may include at least on IMU and a plurality of neuromuscular sensors to track movements of the body segment on which the wearable is located. See Fig. 4 and 7:4-44. Moschella also discloses that alerts and feedback can be presented to users to assist with training or improve performance of the operators and users for a given set of tasks, such as completion, economy of movement, applied forces, and accuracy. See 6:9-32. Finally, retrieving a plan build via the system controller from a memory device is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions. In this regard, the system controller is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses a computer. Retrieving information from a memory device of the computer is receiving data. The additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 14, and 15 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2 recites “determining a work envelope at a workstation within the manufacturing facility within which the part is assembled; and determining, via the system controller using the wireless beacon signals, when the user appendage is in the work envelope, wherein determining the appendage path via the system controller is in response to determining the user appendage is in the work envelope”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “determining a part profile of the part; overlaying the predefined stop location onto the part profile; and mapping the task stop location of the user appendage with respect to the predefined stop location overlayed onto the part profile”, which may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 4 further defines previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining the appendage path and mapping the task location. However, even as further defined, determining the appendage path and mapping the task location may still be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “determining, via the system controller for each of the task stop locations, an absolute location relative to an original position within the manufacturing facility and/or a relative location with respect to the corresponding one of the predefined stop locations”, which may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 6 recites “detecting, via the system controller, a task complete when the task stop location coincides with the predefined stop location within the preset location tolerance and the task stop time coincides with the predefined stop time within the preset time tolerance”, which may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 6 recites the additional element “outputting, via the system controller responsive to detecting the task complete, a second command signal to the system component to output a second audible, visual, and/or tactile alert indicative of the task complete”. Similar to claim 1, outputting an audible, visual, or tactile alert is extra-solution activity, i.e., outputting data. Further, as indicated for claim 1 above in relation to Moschella, outputting an audible, visual, or tactile alert is known in the art Therefore, claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the additional element “wherein the system component is a wearable electronic device worn by the user appendage of the user, the method further comprising: outputting, via the wearable electronic device, a third audible, visual, and/or tactile alert when the task stop location coincides”. Outputting an audible, visual, or tactile alert via a wearable is extra-solution activity, i.e., outputting data. As indicated for claim 1 above in relation to Moschella, outputting an audible, visual, or tactile alert on a wearable is known in the art. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 8 further a previously-identified additional element, i.e., outputting the command signal. However, even as further defined, outputting a signal to output an alert is still extra-solution activity, i.e., outputting data. As indicated for claim 1 above in relation to Moschella, outputting an audible, visual, or tactile alert is known in the art. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 9 further a previously-identified additional element, i.e., transmitting beacon signals via the beacon device. However, even as further defined, transmitting beacon signals is still extra-solution activity, i.e., outputting data. As indicated for claim 1 above in relation to Moschella, mounting the beacon device to a wearable electronic device is known in the art. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 10 further a previously-identified additional element, i.e., outputting the command signal. However, even as further defined, outputting a signal to a wearable device to output an alert is still extra-solution activity, i.e., outputting data. As indicated for claim 1 above in relation to Moschella, outputting an audible, visual, or tactile alert to a wearable device is known in the art. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claims 11 and 19 further a previously-identified additional element, i.e., transmitting beacon signals via the beacon device. However, even as further defined, transmitting beacon signals using a beacon mounted to a tool held by the user is still extra-solution activity, i.e., outputting data. Further mounting a beacon device to a tool held by a user while performing a task is known in the art. Hsu (US 2023/0166366 A1), for example discloses glove sensors 205A that monitors the glove position of the user. See ¶ [0024]).Therefore, claims 11 and 19 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1 and 15.
Claims 12 and 20 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., receiving the wireless beacon signals. Claims 12 and 20 recite “wherein the RF transceiver includes a network of RF transceivers collectively defining a signal reception segment of a real-time localization system (RTLS) configured to track real-time movement of the user appendage with an accuracy of 25 centimeters (cm) or better”. Even as further defined, receiving the wireless beacon signals is still extra-solution activity, i.e., gathering data. Further, this additional element is known in the art. Yamashita et al. (US 2022/0390927 A1), for example, discloses a network of routers 7 in a facility 200. See Fig. 7 and ¶ [0044]. The routers communicate with wearable terminals 4A. See Fig. 2 and ¶ [0074]-[0076]. The routers acquire log information regarding user location at a time correlating to the wearable terminal 4A. See ¶ [0123]. Further, Hsu (US 2023/0166366 A) discloses tracking using sensors having sub-meter positioning technology, such as Bluetooth low energy (BLE) beacons, ultra-wideband (UWB), 5G mmWave, and visible light communication (VLC). See ¶ [0026]. Therefore, claims 12 and 20 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1 and 15.
Claim 13 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., receiving the wireless beacon signals. Claim 13 recites “wherein the network of RF transceivers includes an interconnected array of ultra-wideband (UWB) or WiFi transceivers”. Even as further defined, receiving the wireless beacon signals is still extra-solution activity, i.e., gathering data. Further, this additional element is known in the art. Hsu (US 2023/0166366 A), for example, discloses tracking using sensors having sub-meter positioning technology, such as Bluetooth low energy (BLE) beacons, ultra-wideband (UWB), 5G mmWave, and visible light communication (VLC). See ¶ [0026]. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claim 16 recites “detect a task complete when the task stop location coincides with the predefined stop location within the preset location tolerance and the task stop time coincides with the predefined stop time within the preset time tolerance”, which may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 16 recites the additional element “responsive to detecting the task complete, output a second command signal to the system component to output a second audible, visual, and/or tactile alert indicative of the task complete”. Similar to claim 15, outputting a signal to output an audible, visual, or tactile alert is extra-solution activity, i.e., outputting data. Further, as indicated for claim 15 above in relation to Moschella, outputting an audible, visual, or tactile alert is known in the art Therefore, claim 16 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 7 and does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claims 9 and 10 and does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 9 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights