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
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on April 15, 2026 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; the second office action of October 3, 2025; and the third office action of January 15, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 13-18 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, 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 pretrained data-driven dance model that is a neural network model that is pretrained based on professional dance data, to simultaneously extract time-series two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) skeleton data;
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 through a visual display and a multimodal display in real time,
wherein the extracted learner pose and instructor pose are transformed into visually rendered three-dimensional (3D) avatars,
wherein the rendering comprises visually rendering the main learner as a main-character 3D avatar, visually rendering remaining surrounding learners as backup-dancer 3D avatars, and visually rendering a background environment, and
wherein the real-time multimodal dance education feedback comprises a haptic expression that uses physical vibration or pressure to stimulate a specific part of a body of the main learner.”
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, by implementing a pretrained data-driven dance model that is a neural network model that is pretrained based on professional dance data to simultaneously extract time-series two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) skeleton data;
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 in real time; and
storing the dance video and the instructional dance video,
wherein the extracted learner pose and instructor pose are transformed into visually rendered three-dimensional (3D) avatars,
wherein the rendering comprises visually rendering the main learner as a main-character 3D avatar, visually rendering remaining surrounding learners as backup-dancer 3D avatars, and visually rendering a background environment, and
wherein the real-time multimodal dance education feedback comprises a haptic expression that uses physical vibration or pressure to stimulate a specific part of a body of the main learner.”
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 April 15, 2026 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
1. The Claims Recite a Specific Technical Solution to a Technical Problem in Computer-Implemented Dance Education (Not an Abstract Idea)
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicants respectfully submit that the claimed operations are not merely "organizing human activity" and "a process of data gathering and manipulation" as asserted by the Office. The claimed operations are a specific, ordered combination of computer vision (neural network pose extraction), 3D graphics rendering, and multimodal human-computer interaction that enables real-time bidirectional interactivity in a VR/AR/XR environment - precisely the improvement the instant application describes as "applicable to hyper-realistic immersive content in virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and extended reality (XR)" (See paragraph [0036] of the instant application above).
Moreover, 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 claims specifically recites that the method is a processor-implemented method, and that the processes are performed by a processor.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for dance instruction reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Likewise, 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.
2. The Claim Integrates Any Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application (Step 2A Prong Two)
The Applicant respectfully argues “ Applicants respectfully submit that the claims improve the functioning of a computer system and applies the idea in a particular technical field:
The claims improve the computer itself: Real-time simultaneous extraction of multi-degree of freedom (DoF) two-dimensional and three-dimensional poses, in addition to 2D/3D poses three-dimensional avatar transformation, with synchronized multimodal output (visual display 324 and multimodal display 325) is a specific technological improvement over generic data processing.
Particular machine: The claimed method is explicitly processor-implemented and tied to a recording device (camera) that captures physical dance motions, plus a multimodal display that outputs haptic/auditory/visual feedback. This is not a generic computer; it is the "apparatus for real-time interactive dance education" shown in FIG. 1 and FIGS. 3-6.
Particular field: The claimed features are tied to a particular field - real-time interactive dance education using avatars that reduce psychological burden and provides instructor-like feedback anywhere. (See paragraphs [0006]-[0009], and [0053]-[0054] of the application).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Applicant’s conclusory statement provides no evidence supporting “a specific technological improvement over generic data processing.”
Second, the Applicant is claiming “a generic computer,” as evidenced 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 “particular machine” is reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submit that these are classic Enfish-style improvements and McRO-style ordered-combination limitations that the courts have held patent-eligible.
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.
For example, independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "the real-time multimodal dance education feedback comprises a haptic expression that uses physical vibration or pressure to stimulate a specific part of a body of the main learner. This feature indicates that the claimed "real-time multimodal dance education feedback" includes physical stimulation (vibration or pressure) and is not limited to visual or auditory presentation.
The claimed application relies on real-time 3D pose extraction, cross-video pose comparison, numerical similarity calculation, and time-series-based performance evaluation, all of which require processor-based computation and cannot be practically performed by a human. Based on this performance evaluation, the system physically transforms computed pose errors into haptic expressions (vibration or pressure) applied to the user's body. Generating such vibration or pressure inherently requires hardware control signals to actuate physical components, which constitutes a concrete mechanical action and cannot be performed in the human mind. Furthermore, pose similarity is quantitatively defined using numerical functions, and educational performance is derived as a function of such values over time, thereby converting subjective judgment into objective and standardized numerical metrics implemented by a computer.
These aspects of the claimed application constitute a practical application involving real-world physical interaction.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, 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. 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 extract 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 is merely describing human issues with dance training and not real technologically based problems and solutions. Again, the Applicant is using the computer as a tool in order to apply a different medium to carry out the abstract idea. 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 are not “directed to a patentable, technological improvement...designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice,” as applied to McRo. Here, Applicant’s claims can be practiced by a human without a highly specific skill set as identified in McRo. When compared to McRo, Applicant's claims are unlike the specialized claimed solution of “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators.” The Applicant’s claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101. As such, the argument is persuasive.
Non-mental, processor-dependent computation
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.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the Applicant is merely using the computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Quantitative and standardized performance evaluation
The Applicant respectfully argues “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.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the Applicant is merely using the computer as a tool to apply scoring to the abstract idea. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Technical effect of avatar-based abstraction and privacy preservation
The Applicant respectfully argues “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 integrate 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.
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).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s “data abstraction and de-identification,” is just 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)). Arguably other case law examples could apply, such as:
“obtaining and comparing intangible data” (i.e. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
“data recognition and storage” (i.e. Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
“organizing information through mathematical correlations” (i.e. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Furthermore, the arguments pertaining to “a practical application,” “an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself,” and “effects an improvement in other technology or technical field,” have been asked answered above. These arguments continue to be unpersuasive.
3. The Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Abstract Idea (Step 2B)
The Applicant respectfully argues “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. As only examples, the claimed features are related to:
Pretrained neural-networks (data-driven dance model) for simultaneous 2D/3D pose extraction and error quantification/educational-information extraction.
Processor-implemented 3D avatar rendering of a main learner (center-frame extraction) in addition to backup dancers and a background, synchronized with multimodal feedback (visual/auditory/haptic). The Main-Character Avatar is rendered as the central figure, while Backup Dancer Avatars are rendered in 2D/3D form through background avatar rendering (Module 321). The multi modal feedback includes (1) Visual Expression: Encoded colors, vector expressions, and facial expressions of avatars, (2) Auditory Expression: Alarm triggers for large errors detected during performance, and (3) Haptic Expression: Vibration or pressure stimuli applied to specific body parts of the learner.
Real-time capture pose extraction rendering feedback loop using a dedicated pose extraction module (310), dance rendering module (320), and dance education module (330) (FIGS. 3-5).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s 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 office action has cited several paragraphs in the Applicant’s written description of the specification as originally filed. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive, since the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Finally, the amended claims (a) add concrete, non-generic limitations that cannot be dismissed as "conventional computer functions," (b) directly track the figures and detailed description, and (c) make it difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art to find the claims are "directed to" an abstract idea without ignoring the recited technological environment.
Accordingly, Applicants respectfully disagree with the positions set forth by the Office, and submit that the above-noted rejections are traversed regarding claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-18 as originally presented, and as amended herein, are also traversed in so far as the rejections are applicable to claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-18 upon entry of the above amendments.
For the reasons set forth above, Applicants respectfully submit that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is deficient and Applicant respectfully requests the rejection be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant continues with conclusory statements that provides no evidence supporting that “the amended claims (a) add concrete, non-generic limitations that cannot be dismissed as "conventional computer functions," (b) directly track the figures and detailed description, and (c) make it difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art to find the claims are "directed to" an abstract idea without ignoring the recited technological environment.” As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. 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 Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights