DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is a reply to the amendments filed 8/6/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1, 3-12 are amended. . Claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Re Art Rejections previously issued have been overcome by amendments.
Re: 112f interpretation is no longer being applied due to the amendments removing the language that triggered 112f.
Re 101: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to 101. See rejection due to amendments filed below. The claim language still only has “outputting the score to a user terminal”. The “for a user to institute at least one of the examining the maintenance of an operation site and guiding an operation by an operator based on the score” is not done by the outputting step. The “for” is an intended use that is not actually a step. It is not positively recited. If the Applicant meant to indicate that the system is outputting a recommendation and guidance to navigate or repair in addition to just a score in a specific manner of display format, then it could be a possible way to overcome the 101. However, it would depend on how the claim is worded and how much detail there is. High level reciting may not overcome 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 6 depend on cancelled Claim 2. Claims 4-5 depend on Claim 3 chain, so are also indefinite. For purposes of examination under the other statutes, it is assumed that Claims 3 and 6 are meant to depend on Claim 1.
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, 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites: A safety evaluation system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
detect a risk that an incident occurs, the incident being related to a work machine;
measure a risk time from an occurrence time of the risk that the incident occurs to an elimination time of the risk that the incident occurs;
calculate a score that is a safety evaluation index on the basis of the risk time; and
outputs the score to a user terminal for a user to institute at least one of examining the maintenance of an operation site and guiding an operation by an operator based on the score, and
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
detect, out of the risk that the incident occurs, a risk that an obstacle is present within a predetermined region centered on the work machine,
measure the risk time from a time when entering of an obstacle into the region is detected to a time when the obstacle is no longer detected in the region, and
calculate the score on the basis of a total sum of the risk time.
Step 1: Claim 1 is a system/machine (safety evaluation system).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea of mental process in the following steps:
detect a risk that an incident occurs, the incident being related to a work machine;
measure a risk time from an occurrence time of the risk that the incident occurs to an elimination time of the risk that the incident occurs;
calculate a score that is a safety evaluation index on the basis of the risk time;
detect, out of the risk that the incident occurs, a risk that an obstacle is present within a predetermined region centered on the work machine,
measure the risk time from a time when entering of an obstacle into the region is detected to a time when the obstacle is no longer detected in the region, and
calculate the score on the basis of a total sum of the risk time.
These steps may be performed mentally by a human as observations and evaluations of the observations.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements are memory storing instructions, processor configured to execute the instructions, and the step of outputs the score to a user terminal for a user to institute at least one of examining the maintenance of an operation site and guiding an operation by an operator based on the score. The memory and processor are merely tools being used to execute the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The output step is also insignificant post extra-solutionary activity (2106.05(g)) because it is merely outputting the result of the abstract idea without doing more. Only the output is being claimed. The material after “for” does not appear to be a step that that is done by the system and appears to be intended use for a user to decide whether to do something with the outputted score without it actually happening. There is no positive recitation of a practical application occurring. There are no specific details about if the outputting is special format or any detail that would allow it to be practical application. For these reasons, the additional elements also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements are the same as Step 2A Prong. For the same reasons, the additional elements are not significantly more.
Claim 3. Under Step 2A Prong 1, The safety evaluation system according to Claim 2, wherein the region has a first region centered on the work machine and a second region outside the first region, and the at least one processor is further configured to measure each of a risk time related to the first region and a risk time related to the second region. Is part of the mental process abstract idea because this is more information on which regions and risk times a person can mentally observe and evaluate.
Claim 4 is also part of Step 2A Prong 1 mental process as it relates to calculating scores mentally based on risk times of the two regions.
Claim 5 is also part of Step 2A Prong 1 mental process but also can be interpreted as mathematical relation because there is the math relation of the sum and multiplication risk time included.
Claim 6 is also part of Step 2A Prong 1 mental process as an observation for measuring the risk time.
Claim 7 has similar analysis as Claim 1 regards to mental process abstract idea through evaluation and observation and additional elements of processor, memory, and output step.
Claims 8-11 are also more mental process or math steps under Step 2A Prong 1.
Claim 12: Under Step 1: Claim 12 is a method
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the abstract idea is a mental process and is similar analysis as that of Claim 1’s Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, the additional elements are memory, processor, fourth step of outputting. The analysis is also similar to that of Claim 1.
Relevant Prior Art
The 892 lists relevant prior art to the invention field. One of them is Horita (US 20190333386) determines driving risk in the environment based on static and dynamic factors, including dynamic obstacles whose states changes during lengths of times while static environment factors do not change in a length of time.
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 Abby Lin whose telephone number is (571)270-3976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday before 6pm EST.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights