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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 10/27/2022 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 8, and 15 acronym IoT devices. The claims should recite Internet of Things (IoT) devices.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 8-14 are directed to a system (machine) and Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer program product (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Examiner Note: with regard to claims 15-20, Examiner interpret the program product in view of applicant specification [0015] that the computer-readable storage medium is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 8, and 15 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A processor-implemented method, the method comprising:
capturing user movements through one or more IoT devices;
identifying an activity associated with the captured user movements;
identifying performance requirements related to the identified activity; calculating a quality level metric and a progress-toward-completion metric of the activity based on the performance requirements; and
displaying each metric on a graphical user interface associated with a user device.
The Applicant's Specification titled "COMPLETION LEVEL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY VALIDATION" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for identifying a quality level and displaying metrics on a user interface" (Spec. figure 2).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are recites the abstract idea of identifying a quality level and displaying metrics on a user interface. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of receiving worker information, and identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite identifying a quality level and displaying metrics on a user interface based on receiving user movement. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-19 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, such as
claim 2 (Similarly Claims 9 and 16) generating a knowledge corpus for the activity with the identified performance requirements.
claim 3 (Similarly Claims 10 and 17) wherein identifying the activity utilizes the knowledge corpus, and wherein the knowledge corpus is a historical corpus of activities, activity completion metrics, user movements, and entities used in conjunction with the user movements associated with each activity.
claim 4 (Similarly Claims 11 and 18) where the performance requirements are parameters necessary for completion of the identified activity.
claim 5 (Similarly Claims 12 and 19) wherein the quality level metric is a quantitative, differential comparison between the captured user movements and the identified performance requirements.
claim 6 (Similarly Claims 13 and 20) wherein the progress-towards-completion metric is a quantitative percentage value of progress of the user movements to completing the activity.
claim 7 (Similarly Claim 14) calculating a time savings metric and an effort savings metric, wherein the time savings metric is a differential value of time to complete the activity according to the knowledge corpus and time to complete the activity as determined by the captured user movements, and wherein the effort savings metric is a differential value of energy to complete the activity according to the knowledge corpus and energy to complete the activity as determined by the captured user movements.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1.
One or more IoT devices and user interface
Claim 8. A computer system, one or more processor, computer-readable tangible storage medium, one or more memories, One or more IoT devices and user interface
Claim 15 a computer program product, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, a processor One or more IoT devices and user interface
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 8 and 15 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of A computer system, one or more processor, computer-readable tangible storage medium, one or more memories, One or more IoT devices and user interface which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claim 1 (Similarly claims 8 and 15) as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for identifying a quality level and displaying metrics on a user interface and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention identify a quality level and displaying metrics on a user interface. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, for example, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 8 and 15 include a computer system, one or more processor, computer-readable tangible storage medium, one or more memories, One or more IoT devices and user interface. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to identify a quality level and displaying metrics on a user interface.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akella US 2019/0138880 (hereinafter Akella).
Regarding Claim 1:
A processor-implemented method, the method comprising:
capturing user movements through one or more IoT devices; (Akella [0040], “the action recognition and analytics system 100 … capture streams of data concerning cycles, processes, actions, sequences, object, parameters and or the like by the one or more actors 120-130 and or at the station 105-115. Also, see fig. 8 [0044], [0067])
identifying an activity associated with the captured user movements; (Akella fig. 13 [0037-0038], “plurality of stations”. Akella [00114-0115], “sensed activity information associated with an activity space … the activity information is analyzed”.)
identifying performance requirements related to the identified activity; (Akella [0006], [0086], [0100], “ & [0126-0127], “a special case of basic motion dynamics with attitudinal control requirements … a maximum reach curve associated with requirements of different activities”. Also, see [0135], “analysis of a plurality of sub-activities wherein the performance”.)
calculating a quality level metric and a progress-toward-completion metric of the activity based on the performance requirements; and (Akella [0135], “The analysis can include analysis of a plurality of subactivities wherein the performance of the sub-activities are weighted individually and independently in the analysis. In one exemplary implementation, the ability of an actor to perform with respect to an objective of a sub-activity is weighted differently ( e.g., speed verses conservation of energy, cost, etc.). The analyzing can include analysis of a plurality of sub-components wherein the characteristics of the sub-components are weighted individually and independently in the analysis. Also, see [0100], “process quality assurance in real-time”. see [0111], [0129], “activity space can include information regarding an activity, constraints, and various metrics, including reach, payload, reliability, speed, physical space available for a second actor to be installed”. also, see [0058] & [0060], “score”.)
displaying each metric on a graphical user interface associated with a user device. (Akella [0085], “the mentor portal 580 (EN: display) can include a touch screen display for indicating discrepancies in the processes, actions, sequences, objects and parameters at a corresponding station. The mentor portal 580 could also present training content generated by the one or more analytics units 525 and or the one or more front-end units 575 to an actor at a corresponding station. The management port 585 can be configured to enable searching of the one or more data structures storing analytics, data sets and sensor streams. The management port 585 can also be utilized to control operation of the one or more analytics units 525 for such functions as generating training content, creating work charts, performing line balancing analysis, assessing ergonomics, creating job assignments, performing causal analysis, automation analysis, presenting aggregated statistics EN: metrics”.)
Regarding Claim 2:
Akella disclose the method of claim 1,
Akella further teach further comprising: generating a knowledge corpus for the activity with the identified performance requirements. (Akella [0092], “knowledge-based services”. [0127], “requirements of different activities”. Also, see [0107], “an engine can generate detailed information on activities (e.g., time constraints for beginning/ending an activity”.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Akella disclose the method of claim 2,
Akella further teach wherein identifying the activity utilizes the knowledge corpus, and wherein the knowledge corpus is a historical corpus of activities, (Akella [0105], “The engine can access information on capabilities of a second type of actor. In one embodiment, the information capabilities of the second type of actor may have been previously created by a similar engine process (EN: historical) ( e.g., similar to engine 170, 860, 970, etc.)”) activity completion metrics, (Akella [0092], “knowledge-based services”. [0127], “requirements of different activities”. Also, see [0107], “an engine can generate detailed information on activities (e.g., time constraints for beginning/ending an activity”.) user movements, and entities used in conjunction with the user movements associated with each activity. (Akella [0123], “This
is shown by the dates and times, identified actions, starting coordinates, and in coordinates, the weight of the item, and the movement distance. In one embodiment, a correlation to between the activity and a reach point is established. The activities can be similar to those in the data structure of FIG. 16 and the reach points can be similar to the reach scenario data structure above). Also, see figure 21-21)
Regarding Claim 4:
Akella disclose the method of claim 1,
Akella further teach where the performance requirements are parameters necessary for completion of the identified activity. (Akella [074-0075], “The indicators can include descriptions, identifiers, values and or the like associated with the cycles, processes, actions, sequences, objects, and or parameters. The parameters can include, but is not limited to, time, duration, location (e.g., x, y, z, t), reach point, motion path, grid point, quantity, sensor identifier, station identifier, and bar codes”. Akella [0116], “respective one of the plurality of actors is within an acceptable
threshold (e.g., limit/parameter, measurement, accuracy, payload, etc.)”. also, see [0120-0122])
Regarding Claim 5:
Akella disclose the method of claim 1,
Akella further teach wherein the quality level metric is a quantitative, differential comparison between the captured user movements and the identified performance requirements. (Akella [0066], “each class action is comprised of sets of actions describing actions associated with completing an overall process. Each action within the set of actions can be assigned a score indicating a likelihood that the action matches the action captured in the input video frame. Each action may be assigned a score such that the action with the highest score is designated the recognized action class. Also, see [0107-0108], “the activity space comparison can ensure that the
replacement actor is compatible with activities performed by the replaced actor. In one embodiment, the engine can identify the cheapest actor that will get the job done”. Also, see [0114], “the activity space can include a task space associated with performance of a task”.)
Regarding Claim 7:
Akella disclose the method of claim 3,
Akella further teach further comprising: calculating a time savings metric and an effort savings metric, wherein the time savings metric is a differential value of time to complete the activity according to the knowledge corpus and time to complete the activity as determined by the captured user movements, and (EN: the knowledge corpus here is based on a previous/historical data based on claim 3.) wherein the effort savings metric is a differential value of energy to complete the activity according to the knowledge corpus and energy to complete the activity as determined by the captured user movements. (Akella [0135], “The analysis can include analysis of a plurality of subactivities wherein the performance of the sub-activities are weighted individually and independently in the analysis. In one exemplary implementation, the ability of an actor to perform with respect to an objective of a sub-activity is weighted differently ( e.g., speed verses conservation of energy, cost, etc.). The analyzing can include analysis of a plurality of sub-components wherein the characteristics of the sub-components are weighted individually and independently in the analysis. Also, see [0100], “process quality assurance in real-time”. see [0111], [0129], “activity space can include information regarding an activity, constraints, and various metrics, including reach, payload, reliability, speed, physical space available for a second actor to be installed”. also, see [0058] & [0060], “score. Akella [0105], “The engine can access information on capabilities of a second type of actor. In one embodiment, the information capabilities of the second type of actor may have been previously created by a similar engine process (EN: historical) ( e.g., similar to engine 170, 860, 970, etc.)”. Akella [0092], “knowledge-based services”. [0127], “requirements of different activities”. Also, see [0107], “an engine can generate detailed information on activities (e.g., time constraints for beginning/ending an activity”. Akella [0123], “This is shown by the dates and times, identified actions, starting coordinates, and in coordinates, the weight of the item, and the movement distance. In one embodiment, a correlation to between the activity and a reach point is established. The activities can be similar to those in the data structure of FIG. 16 and the reach points can be similar to the reach scenario data structure above). Also, see figure 21-21)
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 7 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
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.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akella US 2019/0138880 (hereinafter Akella) in view of Powell US 2020/0104169 (hereinafter Powell).
Regarding Claim 6:
Akella disclose the method of claim 1 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Powell, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the progress-towards-completion metric is a quantitative percentage value of progress of the user movements to completing the activity. (Powell figures 3-4 [0006], [0010], [0058-0060], “the penetration value is a percentage of the total time, that is, a percentage of 12 days. Particularly, the first task represented by first task indicia 330 was started today, so the elapsed time is 0 days. The penetration value VP is calculated as … where tnow is the current time in days, t_start is the starting time in days and t_total is the total number of days, that is, 12 days in this example. … 4292% EN: percentage … 80% of the total time of all tasks together”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Akella, to include the feature as taught by Powell, in order to include a quantitative percentage value of progress of the user movements to completing the activity (Powell figures 3-4 [0060]). Also, it will improve estimation accuracy in highly variable environment (Powell [0095]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Akella and Powell, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao, Wenbing, et al. "A human-centered activity tracking system: Toward a healthier workplace." IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 47.3 (2016): 343-355.
Nisky, Ilana, Allison M. Okamura, and Michael H. Hsieh. "Effects of robotic manipulators on movements of novices and surgeons." Surgical endoscopy 28.7 (2014): 2145-2158
Boessenkool, Henri, et al. "A task analysis approach to quantify bottlenecks in task completion time of telemanipulated maintenance." Fusion Engineering and Design 129 (2018): 300-308.
Wada Hirotaka JP 2023/134268: Work recognition system, work recognition method, and work recognition program.
Roy et al. US 2023/0025266: Automatic arm training device, system, and method.
De Magalhaes et al. US 2020/0250508: Personalized activity adviser model.
Hardee et al. US 2017/0352179: Method to adjust avatar attributes using fitness metrics.
Callaghan US 2019/0366154: Physical activity training assistant.
Asendorf et al. US 2019/0347597: Personal protective equipment and safety management system for comparative safety event assessment.
Cano Zapata et al. US 2017/0140308: Tabular phase mapping for cycle time reporting.
Mazzoleni et al. US 2015/0242872: Managing marketing impressions with consumer rewards.
Ryznar et al. US 2008/0121168: Light guided assembly system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624