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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 31, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on December 31, 2025 for the patent application 18/931,473 originally filed on October 30, 2024. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Claims 3 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 13-18 are pending. The first office action of June 9, 2025 and the second office action of October 3., 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this 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 1-18 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 method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 10 is directed to “an apparatus” (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 the abstract ideas of “real-time interactive dance education,” per claim 1, either 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;” and/or “mental processes;” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“capturing dance motions of multiple dance learners, and generating a dance video based on the captured dance motions;
extracting a learner pose and an instructor pose from a dance video containing multiple dance learners and an instructional dance video, respectively;
rendering an avatar dance video based on the extracted pose of a main learner among the multiple dance learners;
generating real-time multimodal dance education feedback for the main learner based on an error between the learner pose and the instructor pose;
quantifying the error into a practical score numerically applicable to dance education;
extracting educational information related to each body part, time, and physical quantity by inputting the learner pose and the instructor pose to a pretrained data-driven dance model; and
generating the multimodal dance education feedback capable of being output using the practical score and the educational information; and
providing the real-time multimodal dance education feedback synchronized to the avatar dance video.”
Per claim 10:
“capture dance motions of multiple dance learners, and generate a dance video based on the captured dance motions;
extract a learner pose and an instructor pose from the dance video containing the multiple dance learners and an instructional dance video, respectively,
render an avatar dance video based on the extracted pose of a main learner among the multiple dance learners,
generate real-time multimodal dance education feedback for the main learner based on an error between the learner pose and the instructor pose,
quantifying the error into a practical score numerically applicable to dance education;
extracting educational information related to each body part, time, and physical quantity by inputting the learner pose and the instructor pose to a pretrained data-driven dance model; and
generating the multimodal dance education feedback capable of being output using the practical score and the educational information;
provide the main learner with the real-time multimodal dance education feedback synchronized to the avatar dance video; and
for storing the dance video and the instructional dance video.”
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 applicants claimed elements of “one or more processors,” “a processor,” “memory,” “a recording device,” and “a multimodal display,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “real-time interactive dance education,” 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. “one or more processors,” “a processor,” “memory,” “a recording device,” and “a multimodal display,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing 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.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more processors,” “a processor” and “memory,” as described in para. [0101] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0101] Referring to FIG. 6, the apparatus for real-time interactive dance education using an avatar according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may be implemented in a computer system including a computer-readable recording medium. As illustrated in FIG. 6, the computer system 600 may include one or more processors 610, memory 630, a user input device 640, a user output device 650, and storage 660, which communicate with each other via a bus 620. Also, the computer system 600 may further include a network interface 670 connected to a network 680. The processor 610 may be a central processing unit or a semiconductor device for executing processing instructions stored in the memory 630 or the storage 660. The memory 630 and the storage 660 may be any of various types of volatile or nonvolatile storage media. For example, the memory may include ROM 631 or RAM 632.”
As such, the Applicant’s “one or more processors,” “a processor” and “memory,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a recording device,” as described in para. [0062] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0062] According to FIG. 4, the pose extraction module 310 may acquire a dance video by capturing the dance motion of the single or multiple dance learners 300 using a recording device such as a real-time camera 311.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a recording device,” is also reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element that is commercially available today.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a multimodal display,” as described in para. [0112] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0112] Here, the error may be quantified into a practical score numerically applicable to dance education, educational information related to each body part, time, and physical quantity may be extracted by inputting the learner pose and the instructor pose to a pretrained data-driven dance model through the user input device 640, such as the real-time camera 311, and the multimodal dance education feedback that can be output to the user output device 650, such as the visual display 324, the multimodal display 325, or the like, may be generated using the practical score and the educational information.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a multimodal display,” is also reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data outputting computing element that is commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 1-18 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 December 31, 2025 related to claims 1-2, 4-11 and 13-18 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Similar to the claims found to be patent eligible in the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” published by the USPTO on January 4, 2019 (“2019 Revised 101 Guidance’), claims 1-18 are not directed to an abstract idea, and are allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ex Parte Baba, Appeal 2019-000116 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2019). For at least the reasons established below, and because no federal circuit case has found such technology for real-time interactive dance education using avatars, and particularly, technology that provides feedback for interactive dance education in real time by utilizing computational techniques for simultaneously extracting a plurality of multi-dimensional poses and for rendering of transformed avatars from such poses, as claimed, to be patent ineligible, claims 1-18 are not directed to an abstract idea, and are allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, decisions originating from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board are classified as non-precedential and are not fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. Only Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions are considered precedential and are fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. As such, decisions originating from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board contain non-binding precedent and do not super cede the Examiner’s subject-matter eligibility analysis using precedential Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions
Second, it was never the intent of The Supreme Court of the United States of America to identify each and every possible abstract idea. Instead their intent was to provide the framework from which subject-matter eligibility could be determined. This was, and presently is, the process used to determine subject-matter eligibility as applicable to this application. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” MPEP (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, (Fed. Cir. 1992). “If the record as a whole suggests that it is more likely than not that the claimed invention would be considered a practical application of an abstract idea, physical phenomenon, or law of nature, then USPTO personnel should not reject the claim.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, the Office has failed to meet its initial burden of “presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” as required by the MPEP. Thus, for at least the reasons established below, claims 1-18 are not directed to an abstract idea and are allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, the analysis of whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea consists of two prongs, wherein a claim is directed to an abstract idea only if (1) the claim recites an abstract idea, and (2) the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See id.
Applicant respectfully submits the present claims (1) do not recite an abstract idea, and (2) the claims integrate their respective features into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims have been examined using the “two-part Mayo test” for determining subject-matter eligibility. This process requires narrowly construing the Applicant’s claims and citing relevant case law to support a subject-matter eligibility determination. The Examiner has respectfully met this burden and has done so at a reasonable level of abstraction. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicants respectfully submit that the present claims are not directed toa “fundamental economic principles,” or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” or “mental process,” as indicated in the above-noted Guidance.
That is, the above-noted claimed features of independent claim 1 (and independent claim 10) are not, and/or would/could not be corresponding to organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people or mental processes, as indicated in the above-noted Guidance.
For example, the Office has not explained with any specificity how the claims when considered as a whole rise to the level of reciting an abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified limitations relate to technology for real-time interactive dance education using avatars, and more precisely to technology for providing real-time feedback for interactive dance education by utilizing computational techniques for simultaneously extracting a plurality of multi-dimensional poses and for rendering of transformed avatars from such poses, and does not support the Office's assertion that the claims recite such an abstract idea under the specified category.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims clearly read on “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) and on “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Specifically, the Applicant’s steps read on observation, evaluation, and judgement performed by an instructor in the analog, as well as providing teaching and following rules or instructions as a result. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Further, in the context of the instant application, the recited operations of capturing dance motions of multiple dance learners with a recording device, and generating a dance video based on the captured dance motions; extracting, by one or more processors, a learner pose and an instructor pose from the dance video containing the multiple dance learners and an instructional dance video, respectively, by implementing a neural network model that is pretrained based on professional dance data; rendering, by the one or more processors, an avatar dance video based on the extracted pose of a main learner among the multiple dance learners; generating, by the one or more processors, real-time multimodal dance education feedback for the main learner based on an error between the learner pose and the instructor pose; the generating comprising: quantifying the error into a practical score numerically applicable to dance education; extracting educational information related to each body part, time, and physical quantity by inputting the learner pose and the instructor pose to a pretrained data-driven dance model; and generating the multimodal dance education feedback capable of being output through a multimodal display using the practical score and the educational information; and providing, by the one or more processors, the real-time multimodal dance education feedback synchronized to the avatar dance video, wherein the extracted learner pose and instructor pose are transformed into processor-implemented visually rendered three-dimensional (3D) avatars are simply not mental processes-they cannot be performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind cannot perform the recited steps of "extracting, by one or more processors, a learner pose and an instructor pose from the dance video containing the multiple dance learners and an instructional dance video, respectively, by implementing a neural network model that is pretrained based on professional dance data," "rendering, by the one or more processors, an avatar dance video based on the extracted pose of a main learner among the multiple dance learners," and "generating, by the one or more processors, real-time multimodal dance education feedback for the main learner based on an error between the learner pose and the instructor pose." Similarly, these operations are also simply not certain methods of organizing human activity as described in our guidance. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. That is, managing a user's activities with a computer to perform the recited steps is not a "fundamental economic principle[] or practice[],""commercial or legal interaction[]," or "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that the above-noted claimed features are not, and/or would/could not be organizing human activities, cannot be practically performed in the human mind and/or correspond to mental activities, since the claim specifically recites that the method is a processor-implemented method, and that the processes are performed by a processor.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “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 Appellant 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 “Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that the above-noted claimed features are not, and/or would/could not be organizing human activities, cannot be practically performed in the human mind and/or correspond to mental activities, since the claim specifically recites that the method is a processor-implemented method, and that the processes are performed by a processor.
As only examples, paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0048], [0051], [00103] of the originally filed specification discloses:
[0040] The apparatus 110 for real-time interactive dance education extracts a learner pose and an instructor pose from a dance video containing multiple dance learners and an instructional dance video, respectively.
[0043] Also, the apparatus 110 for real-time interactive dance education renders an avatar dance video based on the extracted pose of a main learner among the multiple dance learners.
[0048] Also, the apparatus 110 for real-time interactive dance education generates multimodal dance education feedback for the main learner based on an error between the learner pose and the instructor pose.
[0051] Also, the apparatus 110 for real-time interactive dance education provides the main learner with the real-time multimodal dance education feedback synchronized to the avatar dance video.
[00103] The processor 610 extracts a learner pose and an instructor pose from a dance video containing multiple dance learners and an instructional dance video, respectively. (Emphasis added).
Accordingly, each of the claimed operations are performed by an apparatus or a processor. That is, the above-noted claimed features of independent claim 1 (and independent claim 10) are not, and/or would/could not correspond to organizing human activities or mental processes, as indicated in the above-noted Guidance.
Therefore, the present claims do not recite an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the Applicant’s claims are merely using the computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and using a different medium to do so. There is no advancement in technology provided, just an application using existing technology to carry out the abstract idea. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Further, the following is also noted: “[i]t is well established that agencies have a duty to provide reviewing courts with a sufficient explanation for their decisions so that those decisions may be judged against the relevant statutory standards, and that failure to provide such an explanation is grounds for striking down the action,” in addition, “an agency is not free to refuse to follow circuit precedent.” In re Lee, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (CAFC 2002).
In the present case, the Office has failed to provide any rationale evidencing that the claimed subject matter is similar to what the courts have identified as an abstract idea, and has failed to provide any citation of any court-identified cases with respect to the above- noted claimed features as a whole.
It is respectfully submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to mentally perform the claimed features.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are not directed to a "organizing human activity" or "mental processes," as indicated in the above-noted Guidance. Specifically, the claims do not recite organizing human activity, and the claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Office Action has improperly asserted that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Applicants respectfully submit that the claims, considered as a whole without overgeneralization, are clearly not directed to an abstract idea. Based on the specific detail of the claims, Applicants respectfully submit that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s arguments with regard to an examiner’s “duty,” “mentally performing” the abstract idea, and “the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind,” have been asked and answered. As such, the arguments continue to be unpersuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “In the instant case, the claims solve a specific problem in remote dance education- providing synchronized, immersive feedback in real-time using computer vision and rendering technologies.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Remote dance education is not a technical problem, but a man-made problem. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Further, the concrete process of generating real-time, multimodal feedback based on quantified pose errors and extracted educational information is clear evidence that the instant application achieves a technical improvement through a processor-implemented computational pipeline, rather than constituting an abstract mental process.
For example, paragraph [0005] of the original specification discloses:
in the case of online video training, it is difficult to provide real-time feedback, which results in the reduced effectiveness of learning. In addition, the accessibility on these kinds of media is also limited in general, due to the psychological burden of using video information of actual people.
To solve this problem, the features of independent claim 1 extracts poses from multiple learners' videos, renders avatars, generates error-based multimodal haptic feedback, and provides real-time multimodal dance education feedback synchronized to the avatar dance video, wherein the extracted learner pose and instructor pose are transformed into processor- implemented visually rendered three-dimensional (3D) avatars.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument merely claims a utility, alleviating any burdensome activities normally performed by a human. No new advancements in technology are present. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The claimed features therefore improve upon typical video-based learning by enabling dynamic, personalized interaction. The claimed operations are not mere automation of teaching but a technical advancement in processing video data for educational output, similar to the eligible claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., No. 15-1080, that was heard on September 13, 2016.
In McRO, the court held that a computer-implemented process can be patent-eligible when it automates a subjective human task using specific, rule-based methods rather than abstract concepts. Automation of creative or artistic processes can still meet §101 eligibility if rooted in specific, non-generic technological rules. Moreover, automated lip-sync animation was a specific improvement. “
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 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. As such, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The instant application relies on real-time 3D pose extraction, cross-video pose comparison, numerical similarity calculation, and time-series-based performance evaluation- operations that cannot be practically performed by a human and necessarily require processor- based computation.
Pose similarity is explicitly quantified using numerical distance functions, and educational performance is derived as a monotonic function of such similarity values over time. This converts subjective judgment into objective, standardized numerical metrics implemented by a computer.
Transforming extracted poses into visually rendered 3D avatars serves as a form of data abstraction and de-identification, technically reducing exposure of personally identifiable visual information and enabling privacy-preserving real-time education.
The claims of the instant application integrates any Office-perceived abstract idea into a practical application via specific technical outputs (three-dimensional (3D) avatars and real-time synchronization), and go beyond generic automation by addressing dance-specific challenges like pose fidelity and feedback delivery.
The claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical, technically specific method for real-time dance education. The 3D avatar rendering, neural network model pretraining on dance data, and synchronized multimodal feedback provide the required technological integration and inventive concept.
Additionally, the instant claims require specific technical elements, for example, one or more processors and memories (claim 10) for handling 2D/3D skeleton data (claims 2 and 11). The claimed pose extraction transforms raw video captured by an image recording device into structured time-series data. Avatar rendering creates a virtual representation, and feedback generation uses a "pretrained data-driven dance model". All of these elements and factors integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by applying machine learning and graphics rendering to achieve real-time synchronization, thus addressing challenges such as latency in multi-user video analysis.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims take a pre-electronic teaching analog that is burdensome (i.e. dance instruction and evaluation) and alleviate this burden using a generic computer providing instruction using a different medium (i.e. 2D/3D avatar).
In other words, the Applicant’s claims aren’t solving a software problem that only exists in computing, but fixes a teacher’s problem of being overburdened by assembling unique educational content that can be described as very time consuming and tedious work. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Indeed, claims 1-18 are directed to both an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself and effects an improvement in other technology or technical field, for example, as a non-limiting example, an improvement in the field of, as only examples, dance education technology. (See the Specification at paragraphs [0052]-[0054], and [0096], as only examples).
[0052] Through the above-described system, dance education technology that allows an instructor who aims to teach dances to reflect dynamic changes of body parts required for dance learning in real time through an avatar in consideration of the temporal aspect of a dance may be provided.
[0053]Also, a dance education system based on multimodal interaction that encompasses vision and multiple sensations may be provided through an education system using avatars.
[0054] Also, a visual display that is configured with a main character and background characters may be provided by rendering a main learner and surrounding learners as avatars.
[0096] Through the above-described method for real-time interactive dance education using an avatar, dance education technology that allows an instructor who aims to teach dances to reflect dynamic changes of body parts required for dance learning in real time through an avatar in consideration of the temporal aspect of a dance may be provided. (Emphasis added).
Further, it is respectfully submitted that the pending claims recite patentable subject matter and that the rejection of claims 1-18 under U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn because the pending claims should be considered as ‘integrating an alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant’s argument is conclusory and fails to provide any evidence supporting that the Applicant’s claims provide “both an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself and effects an improvement in other technology or technical field.”
Second, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, 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. The Applicant is merely automating what is done in the analog. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Accordingly, even if it could be considered that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims also include an element, or a combination of elements, that are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the pending claims, as amended herewith, and the present disclosure clearly demonstrate that the claims are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that it is impossible to readily conclude that the numerous elements, individually, as a whole, in an ordered combination, or in inventive concept implementation do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea when considering the claims as a whole.
Thus, claims 1-18 are not directed to abstract ideas and are patent eligible. As the claimed features of claims 1-18 offer improvements to another technology/technical field, offer improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/device, Applicants submit that they are thus significantly more than a mere abstract idea. Because claims 1-18 are not directed to an abstract idea, it is respectfully requested that the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated above, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more processors,” “a processor” and “memory,” as described in para. [0101] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “For the reasons set forth above, Applicants respectfully submit that the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is deficient and Applicant respectfully requests the rejection be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons set forth here and above. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not 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