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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15, 22, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanukurthy (US 20190073618 A1), and further in view of Le (US 20190043468 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kanukurthy (US 20190073618 A1) discloses a method comprising:
performing a digital twin simulation of sound generation for each operation out of a plurality of operations a user conducts on a machine in a workplace (Kanukurthy, Fig. 2, item 228; ¶ [0145]: “application may automatically simulate multiple different locations for multiple different changes to noise sources or attenuating changes to noise sources or attenuating changes (e.g., adding barriers, turning off or changing machine operations, etc.”);
calculating, based on the digital twin simulation, one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace (Kanukurthy, ¶ [0041]: “computing devices, which implement analytical techniques to detect and automatically respond to potential human hearing loss events”; ¶ [0145]: “determine (calculating) which combination of changes to noise sources or attenuating changes will provide an optimal reduction in noise or a reduction in noise that satisfies a threshold value.”);
identifying sound cancellation potential of a sound cancellation device associated with the user based on the sound generation for each operation out of the plurality of operations the user conducts on the machine in the workplace and a position of the user (Kanukurthy, Abstract: “ identify an updated location in the work environment having a sound level that is different from a current location, … the amount of sound, and the sound level data that indicates different sound levels at different, respective locations”; ¶ [0042]: “equipping a worker with hearing protection and testing a level or the amount of noise reduction that the worker receives from the hearing protection”);
notifying the user of insufficient sound cancellation based on the sound cancellation potential of the sound cancellation device (Kanukurthy, Fig. 2; item 228; ¶ [0057]: “application 228 may proactively notify the worker and/or one or more registered users to reduce or prevent noise-induced hearing loss of the worker”; ¶ [0086]: “Alert component may generate and send alerts via any number of modes of communication. For instance, alert component may generate and send one or more emails, phone calls, text messages, user interface notifications, or any
other type of alert.”)
However, Kanukurthy fails to disclose assigning a robotic system to conduct a first operation out of the plurality of operations on the machine in the workplace, wherein the sound cancellation device provides the insufficient sound cancellation for the first operation.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Le (US 20190043468 A1) discloses a robotic (automatic) system to conduct a first operation out of the plurality of operations on the machine in the workplace, wherein the sound cancellation device provides the insufficient sound cancellation for the first operation (Le, Fig. 4; ¶ [0051-0052]: “the
monitor 52 senses that there is a large amount of repetitive noise, and
not much high amplitude sound, the system will be placed into Mode 2,
automatic noise cancellation only. In contrast, if the monitor 52 senses not much repetitive noise but a significant amount of high amplitude sounds, then the system will be placed into Mode 1, automatic noise reduction only. If the monitor 52 senses both repetitive noise and high amplitude sounds, the system will be placed into Mode 3, obtaining both automatic noise reduction and automatic noise cancellation. Amplitudes, specific sounds, etc., can all be programmed into the firmware of the monitor 52.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a robotic system to conduct a first operation out of the plurality of operations on the machine in the workplace, wherein the sound cancellation device provides the insufficient sound cancellation for the first operation.as taught by Le in Kanukurthy .invention. The motivation would have been to extract signal data from audio signals captured by sound transducer positioned within the predetermined area and performing signal processing on the signal data to determine to switch to automatic system when
sound identifiable as to high ¶ [0051-0052].
Regarding claim 8 and 15, A computer system comprising:
a processor set (Kanukurthy, Fig. 1B, item 130);
one or more computer readable storage medium; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage medium (Kanukurthy, Fig. 1B, item 134; ¶ [0068]: “device 134 may store program instructions”) to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising:
performing a digital twin simulation of sound generation for each operation out of a plurality of operations a user conducts on a machine in a workplace (Kanukurthy, Fig. 2, item 228; ¶ [0145]: “application may automatically simulate multiple different locations for multiple different changes to noise sources or attenuating changes to noise sources or attenuating changes (e.g., adding barriers, turning off or changing machine operations, etc.”);
calculating, based on the digital twin simulation, one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace (Kanukurthy, ¶ [0041]: “computing devices, which implement analytical techniques to detect and automatically respond to potential human hearing loss events”; ¶ [0145]: “determine (calculating) which combination of changes to noise sources or attenuating changes will provide an optimal reduction in noise or a reduction in noise that satisfies a threshold value.”);
identifying sound cancellation potential of a sound cancellation device associated with the user based on the sound generation for each operation out of the plurality of operations the user conducts on the machine in the workplace and a position of the user (Kanukurthy, ¶ [0041]: “computing devices, which implement analytical techniques to detect and automatically respond to potential human hearing loss events”; ¶ [0145]: “determine (calculating) which combination of changes to noise sources or attenuating changes will provide an optimal reduction in noise or a reduction in noise that satisfies a threshold value.”);
notifying the user, via the sound cancellation device, of insufficient sound cancellation based on the sound cancellation potential of the sound cancellation device (Kanukurthy, Fig. 2; item 228; ¶ [0057]: “application 228 may proactively notify the worker and/or one or more registered users to reduce or prevent noise-induced hearing loss of the worker”; ¶ [0086]: “Alert component may generate and send alerts via any number of modes of communication. For instance, alert component may generate and send one or more emails, phone calls, text messages, user
interface notifications, or any other type of alert.”).
However, Kanukurthy fails to disclose assigning a robotic system to conduct a first operation out of the plurality of operations on the machine in the workplace, wherein the sound cancellation device provides the insufficient sound cancellation for the first operation.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Le (US 20190043468 A1) discloses a robotic (automatic) system to conduct a first operation out of the plurality of operations on the machine in the workplace, wherein the sound cancellation device provides the insufficient sound cancellation for the first operation (Le, Fig. 4; ¶ [0051-0052]: “the
monitor 52 senses that there is a large amount of repetitive noise, and
not much high amplitude sound, the system will be placed into Mode 2,
automatic noise cancellation only. In contrast, if the monitor 52 senses not much repetitive noise but a significant amount of high amplitude sounds, then the system will be placed into Mode 1, automatic noise reduction only. If the monitor 52 senses both repetitive noise and high amplitude sounds, the system will be placed into Mode 3, obtaining both automatic noise reduction and automatic noise cancellation. Amplitudes, specific sounds, etc., can all be programmed into the firmware of the monitor 52.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a robotic system to conduct a first operation out of the plurality of operations on the machine in the workplace, wherein the sound cancellation device provides the insufficient sound cancellation for the first operation.as taught by Le in Kanukurthy .invention. The motivation would have been to extract signal data from audio signals captured by sound transducer positioned within the predetermined area and performing signal processing on the signal data to determine to switch to automatic system when
sound identifiable as to high ¶ [0051-0052].
Regarding claims 22 and 26, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and 8 respectively.
Kanukurthy further discloses comprising:
accessing control of the machine in the workplace; and turning off the machine in the workplace based on the insufficient sound cancellation by the sound cancellation device (Kanukurthy, ¶ [0145]: “changes to noise sources or attenuating changes (e.g., adding barriers, turning off or changing machine operations, etc.), and determine which combination of changes to noise sources or attenuating changes will provide an optimal reduction in noise or a reduction in noise that satisfies a threshold value”).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanukurthy (US 20190073618 A1), in view of Le (US 20190043468 A1) and further in view of Cella (US 20210287459 A1).
Regarding claim 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le discloses all the limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
However, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le fails to disclose wherein the calculating, based on the digital twin simulation, the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace further comprises: calculating the sound generation based on one or more locations of the user in the workplace and one or more operations the user conducts in the workplace.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Cella (US 20210287459 A1) discloses wherein the calculating, based on the digital twin simulation, the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace further comprises:
calculating the sound generation based on one or more locations of the user in the workplace and one or more operations the user conducts in the workplace (Cella, ¶ [0888]: “The simulation may also individualize data for each worker (e.g., comparing estimated amounts to collected worker-specific outcomes).”. ¶ [0940]: “in a digital twin and/or one or more embedded digital twins, including, but not limited to,… location values, pressure values, stress values, strain values, …sound level values, volume values”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of calculating the sound generation based on one or more locations of the user in the workplace and one or more operations the user conducts in the workplace as disclosed by Cella in Kanukurthy and Le inventions. The motivation would have been to extract signal data from audio signals captured by sound transducer positioned within the predetermined area and performing signal processing on the signal data to determine to switch to automatic system when sound identifiable as to high.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanukurthy (US 20190073618 A1), in view of Le (US 20190043468 A1), and further in view of Awiszus (US 20170372216 A1).
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le discloses all the limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
The combination of Kanukurthy and Le fails to disclose comprising: notifying one or more superiors of the user of the insufficient sound cancellation by the sound cancellation device associated with the user.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Awiszus discloses notifying one or more superiors of the user of the insufficient sound cancellation by the sound cancellation device associated with the user (Awiszus, ¶ [0189]: “notify workers (or persons nearby or supervising the worker) when the noise level in the work environment exceeds an exposure threshold and when the ear muffs are not engaged in the active position so the worker can ensure his headgear mounted ear muffs are in the active position.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of notifying one or more superiors of the user of the insufficient sound cancellation by the sound cancellation device associated with the user as by Awiszus in the Kanukurthy and Le invention. The motivation is to generate a notification for a worker within a certain area when the noise level exceeds a predetermined level in that area and when the ear muffs worn by the worker are in the standby position.
Claim(s) 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanukurthy (US 20190073618 A1), in view of Le (US 20190043468 A1), in view of Dave (US 20210366457 A1), and further Cella (US 20210157312 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 25, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and 8 respectively.
However, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le fails to disclose comprising:
determining that the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace are greater than another one or more resultant sound fields for each operation the user conducts on the machine in the workplace; and determining that the machine in the work places workplace requires maintenance based on the determining that the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace are greater than the another one or more resultant sound fields.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Dave (US 20210366457 A1) discloses determining that the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace are greater than another one or more resultant sound fields for each operation the user conducts on the machine in the workplace (Dave, ¶ [0015]: “situations where multiple medical devices can be active at a single time or when certain medical known to generate loud sounds and/or strong vibrations are active. Accordingly, reducing or eliminating sounds and/or vibrations generated by medical devices may resolve annoyances and discomforts”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the disclosure of determining that the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace are greater than another one or more resultant sound fields for each operation the user conducts on the machine in the workplace as disclosed by Dave in Kanukurthy and Le invention. The motivation is to prevent damage to his/her auditory system.
However, the combination of Kanukurthy, Le and Dave fails to disclose determining that the machine in the workplaces requires maintenance based on the determining that the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace are greater than the another one or more resultant sound fields.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Cella (US 20210157312 A1) discloses determining that the machine in the workplaces requires maintenance based on the determining that the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace are greater than the another one or more resultant sound fields (Cella, ¶ [1781]: “all three types of noise (ambient noise, local noise and vibration noise) including various subsets thereof and combinations with other types of data, may be organized into large data sets, along with measured results, that are processed by a “deep learning” machine/expert system that learns to predict one or more states (e.g., maintenance, failure, or operational)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determining that the machine in the workplaces requires maintenance based on the determining that the one or more resultant sound fields in the workplace are greater than the another one or more resultant sound fields. as taught by Cella in Kanukurthy, Le and Dave invention. The motivation is to predict the health of devices based on noise or vibrations.
Claim(s) 23-24 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanukurthy (US 20190073618 A1), in view of Le (US 20190043468 A1), and further in view of Muggleton (US 20190385583 A1).
Regarding claim 23 and 27, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and 8 respectively.
However, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le fail to disclose wherein the notifying the user, via the sound cancellation device, of the insufficient sound cancellation includes a prompt in a view device on the sound cancellation device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Muggleton (US 20190385583 A1) discloses wherein the notifying the user, via the sound cancellation device, of the insufficient sound cancellation includes a prompt in a view device on the sound cancellation device (Muggleton, ¶ [0007]: “determine if the hearing protection provided by the NMD is insufficient/inadequate (e.g., hearing protection element of the NMD does not have active noise cancellation and/or not a high enough NRR), and transmit a warning to the NMD if the hearing protection is found inadequate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of notifying the user, via the sound cancellation device, of the insufficient sound cancellation includes a prompt in a view device on the sound cancellation device as taught by Muggleton in Kanukurthy and Le invention. The motivation is to make the user aware that the noise cancellation limit has been reached.
Regarding claim 24 and 28, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and 8 respectively.
However, the combination of Kanukurthy and Le fail to disclose wherein the notifying the user, via the sound cancellation device, of the insufficient sound cancellation includes an output of a noise by the sound cancellation device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Muggleton (US 20190385583 A1) discloses wherein the notifying the user, via the sound cancellation device, of the insufficient sound cancellation includes an output of a noise by the sound cancellation device (Muggleton, Fig. 3A; ¶ [0036]: “the speaker 107 may generate an output sound, tone, and/or instruction within the defined area so that a user may be alerted to the potentially hazardous noise event.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of notifying the user, via the sound cancellation device, of the insufficient sound cancellation includes a prompt in a view device on the sound cancellation device as taught by Muggleton in Kanukurthy and Le invention. The motivation is to make the user aware that the noise cancellation limit has been reached.
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 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 FRIEDRICH FAHNERT whose telephone number is (571)270-7797. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/FRIEDRICH FAHNERT/
Examiner
Art Unit 2692