DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to amendment and remarks dated 4/27/26. Claims 1, 8, 10, 17 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-9 are drawn to a computer-implemented method for providing a prophylaxis against injuries, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 10-18 are drawn to a computer program product for providing a prophylaxis against injuries, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. article of manufacture). Claims 19-20 are drawn to a system for providing a prophylaxis against injuries, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a prophylaxis against injuries by identifying a set of tasks within a workflow comprising:
simulating performance of the tasks using a skeletal model within a computer simulation, the skeletal model being defined by joints and articulations of the joints;
aggregating stresses at the joints over time into an aggregate stress and aggregating loads at the joints over time into an aggregate load;
comparing the stresses to a recommended stress limit and comparing the aggregate load to a recommended load limit; and
recommending a reconfiguration of the set of tasks in response to one of the stresses exceeding the recommended stress limits and the loads exceeding the recommended load limits.
These recited bolded limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
The limitations of simulating a performance of tasks; and recommending a reconfiguration of a set of tasks, as drafted and detailed above, are steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps for organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is a method of selecting/arranging tasks within a workflow to reduce injury risk. These limitations collectively amount to managing a workflow / managing performance of human activity (workplace task organization) to achieve a safety outcome (injury prophylaxis), thus falling into one category of abstract idea (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions -- see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). That is other than reciting “computer simulation” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed between people or by a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a prophylaxis against injuries by identifying a set of tasks within a workflow comprising:
simulating performance of the tasks using a skeletal model within a computer simulation, the skeletal model being defined by joints and articulations of the joints;
aggregating stresses at the joints over time into an aggregate stress and aggregating loads at the joints over time into an aggregate load;
comparing the stresses to a recommended stress limit and comparing the aggregate load to a recommended load limit; and
recommending a reconfiguration of the set of tasks in response to one of the stresses exceeding the recommended stress limits and the loads exceeding the recommended load limits.
The additional underlined elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
the recitations performing the functions by computer simulation amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0019], [0068] of the present Specification.
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of performing the functions by computer simulation merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer,
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.” Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
As per claims 10 and 19, the claims teach limitations similar to claim 1 and the same abstract idea (“certain methods of organizing human activity”) for the same reasons as stated above. Claim 10 further teaches A computer program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions to perform the functionality taught by claim 1. Claim 19 further teaches a computer having a set of process circuitry and a persistent storage to perform the functionality taught by claim 1
These limitations as generally recited, amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Independent claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, for similar reasons as representative independent claim 1, analogous independent claims 10 and 19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more.
The following dependent claims further the define the abstract idea or are also directed to an abstract idea itself:
Dependent claims 2-5 and 11-14, further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract).
In relation to claims 6-8, and 15-17, these claims specify identifying one or more activities; simulating load and frequency variation; comparing and recommending a reconfiguration of tasks; which is a certain method of organizing human activity, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 9, 18 and 20: These claims specify an augmented reality device; and an IOT configuration, which thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
The dependent claims further do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant begins arguments on pg. 6 of the 4/27/26 Remarks traversing the current rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101.
Applicant argues on pgs. 9-10 that the claims do not recite a judicial exception because the claimed process cannot practically be performed by a human. Specifically, Applicant asserts that repetitive performance of the claimed activities could result in musculoskeletal injury and that the claimed computer simulation avoids such injury by performing the analysis without requiring a human to physically perform the repetitive tasks. Applicant therefore concludes that the claims do not fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The present rejection is not based on whether the claimed operations can practically be performed in the human mind. Rather, the rejection is based on the determination that the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, namely, evaluating workplace tasks and recommending modifications to the manner in which those tasks are performed to reduce the likelihood of injury.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims recite identifying a set of tasks within a workflow, evaluating those tasks by comparing aggregated stresses and loads to recommended limits, and recommending a reconfiguration of the workflow when the recommended limits are exceeded. These limitations are directed to managing the performance of human work activities by determining how tasks should be organized and performed. Such subject matter falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping because it concerns managing personal behavior and providing rules or instructions regarding how human work activities should be performed.
Although the claims recite performing the evaluation using a computer simulation and a skeletal model, those elements are employed as tools to evaluate workplace tasks and generate a recommendation regarding how the tasks should be performed. The focus of the claims remains the organization and management of human work activities rather than an improvement to computer technology, simulation technology, or another technological field. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant on pgs. 10-11, further argues that the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention provides a prophylaxis against injuries and therefore falls within MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). The argument is not persuasive.
Although the claims are intended to reduce the likelihood of musculoskeletal injury, the claims do not recite a treatment administered to a patient, operation of a medical device, or any affirmative physical action that changes a patient's physiological condition. Instead, the claims evaluate simulated task performance and generate a recommendation regarding how tasks should be performed.
The practical application identified by Applicant arises from the informational content of the recommendation rather than from a technological application of the judicial exception. The claims do not recite automatically controlling machinery, modifying workplace equipment, controlling a robot, or otherwise implementing the recommended workflow. Rather, the claims stop at recommending a reconfiguration of the set of tasks. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and therefore do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Subject Matter free from Prior Art
The closest domestic prior art of record Elyea (6,963,827) teaches transforming a manually performed process into a time-based listing of events, simulating the process, tabulating results, and providing a graphical depiction of a subject performing simulated tasks. However, US Elyea does not expressly teach: (i) aggregating stresses and loads at joints over time into a distinct aggregate stress and aggregate load; (ii) comparing joint stresses and loads to both a recommended stress limit and a recommended load limit; or (iii) recommending a reconfiguration of a set of tasks within a workflow responsive to exceedance of the claimed stress/load limits (as opposed to merely identifying/visualizing awkward or overly demanding movements).
The closest foreign prior art of record Bhushan (EP-2801318-B1) teaches collecting movement-related data via sensors attached to subjects and analyzing such data to determine forces (e.g., vibration/jerks/acceleration) and comparing analyzed data to ergonomic conditions to detect ergonomic hot spots. Bhushan, nevertheless does not expressly teach performing a computer simulation of task performance using a skeletal model defined by joints and articulations, nor does it expressly teach aggregating joint stresses and loads over time into an aggregate stress and aggregate load, nor recommending a workflow task-set reconfiguration in response to exceeding recommended stress/load limits.
The closest non patent literature of record McAtamney (McAtamney L, Nigel Corlett E. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon. 1993 Apr;24(2):91-9. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-s. PMID: 15676903) teaches well-known ergonomic assessment methodologies such as RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment), REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment), and the Revised NIOSH lifting equation, each of which provides structured ergonomic scoring/assessment and/or recommended limits for manual lifting. While McAtmney discusses posture/load assessment and recommended limits, it does not expressly teach the independent claims’ computer-implemented teaching of (i) simulating workflow tasks using a skeletal model, (ii) aggregating stresses and loads at joints over time into aggregate stress and aggregate load, and (iii) recommending reconfiguration of a set of tasks within a workflow responsive to exceedance of the claimed stress/load limits.
However the closest prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not expressly disclose the independent claims’ combination of: (1) simulating performance of workflow tasks using a skeletal model defined by joints/articulations; (2) aggregating joint stresses over time into aggregate stress and aggregate load; (3) comparing those to recommended stress and load limits; and (4) recommending workflow task-set reconfiguration based on the claimed exceedance condition.
No final decision on allowability has been made in light of pending rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 7/14/2026
Prosecution Insights