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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 11/28/2022 has been reviewed and the listed references have been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The 6-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Consider claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a “computer-readable storage medium”. Applicant’s specification states “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OG 212 (26 Jan 2010). See MPEP 2111.01. Signals are nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, and as such is nonstatutory natural phenomena. See, e.g., In re Nuitjen, 500 F. 3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(slip. op. at 18)("A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen's is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.' … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter."). Thus, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In order to overcome this rejection, Applicant may amend the claim by inserting the term “non-transitory” before “computer-readable storage medium”. In addition, claims 15-20 are rejected under this section of the rules due to their dependency from the rejected base claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (WO 2022/103406 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Shin teaches “A computer system for remediating ergonomic issues (Shin paragraph [0014] "a posture detection system that can detect one or more postural changes associated with a user and send a notification to the user when the user's posture deviates too far from an ideal posture position"), the computer system comprising:
a communication fabric; a storage device connected to the communication fabric, wherein the storage device stores program instructions; and a processor connected to the communication fabric (Shin paragraph [0027] "Device 400 may include one or more memories 410, sensors 420, processors 430, a battery 440, a communication interface 450, output 460, as well as other components"), wherein the processor executes the program instructions to:
generate an ergonomic score corresponding to a user based on differences (Shin Figures 1, 2, and paragraph [0018] "System 100 can then determine a posture score when user 101 is upright based on measurements 141, 142, 143, 151, 152 and when the user is slouched based on measurements 144, 145, 146, 153, 154") between variations in physical positions of the user at a workstation (Shin paragraph [0017] "FIG. 2 depicts an example of a user 101 in a slouched position, deviating from the upright position") and an ideal ergonomic setup corresponding to a target correct posture of the user at the workstation (Shin paragraph [0016] "FIG. 1 depicts an example of a user 101 in an upright position");
send an alert regarding the differences to a client device of the user (Shin paragraph [0025] "Where a posture score of a position of a user deviates a threshold amount from a reference posture score for too long, system 100 can send a notification to user 101 informing the user that they are no longer in the upright position") via a network; and
perform a set of remediation actions based on the ergonomic score (Shin paragraph [0026] "FIG. 6 depicts hub 130 having a text notification 161 stating "You're slouching! Try sitting up straighter." displayed on screen 160. The alert in turn may provide health benefits such as mitigating potential back pain or strengthening the user's core by consistently maintaining a proper upright posture").”
PNG
media_image1.png
434
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shin Figure 1 – showing ideal posture
PNG
media_image2.png
434
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shin Figure 2 – showing slouching
Claim 1 recites a method with steps corresponding to the system elements
recited in claim 9. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding elements of system claim 9.
Claim 14 recites a computer program product with instructions corresponding to the system elements recited in claim 9. Therefore, the recited instructions of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding elements of system claim 9.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Baxi et al. (US 9,044,172 B2) A1).
Regarding claim 2 (similarly claim 10 and claim 15), Shin teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the computer, (Shin paragraph [0039] "The measurements can additionally be an angle between devices 110, 120 and hub device 130, such as angles 153, 154. Additionally, one or both of the first and second signals can provide information for hub device 130 to calculate distances 146 between first device 110 and second device 120, such as information regarding a signal sent between the first device and the second device");
accessing, by the computer, the set of sensors via the network (Shin paragraph [0034] The communication interface 450 may be used to form connections with, or send signals to, other devices, such as a paired host device or another earbud"); and
receiving, by the computer, streaming data from the set of sensors via the network (Shin paragraph [0035] "communications interface may include the capability for device 110 and 120 to communicate with each other, either wirelessly over via a wire connecting them. For example, if device 110 and 120 can communicate with each other and their relative position calibrated when worn by a user, then it may be possible to equip only one device 110 or 120 relative to device 130 with the ultra-wideband technology described herein so as to calculate the position and angle of only one device 110 or 120 equipped with the ultra-wideband technology. The position and angle of the one device can then be computed based on the calculated position of that device").”
However, Shin does not explicitly teach “a set of sensors corresponding to the workstation of the user”.
Baxi teaches “a set of sensors corresponding to the workstation of the user (Baxi column 4 lines 18-32 "The plurality of sensors may include or be a combination of any of the following: an orientation sensor coupled to the user's body (e.g., the user's hip) for posture sensing; an orientation sensor coupled to the display of the computing device for screen tilt or device orientation sensing; an image sensor ( e.g., a camera) placed in a position to view the eyes of the user to determine the user's")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine an
posture correction system of a user as taught by Shin to include sensor information related to various workstation items as taught by Baxi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “Computer users find it difficult to establish and maintain proper ergonomics during computer use. Often times, a user does not know his interactions with a computer are ergonomically improper until he incurs an injury, e.g., Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI). For businesses whose employees use computers, RSI injuries may lead to a significant number of work days lost" as noted by the Baxi disclosure in column 1, lines 17-23.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Shin with
the Baxi disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 as there is a
reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11-12, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Baxi in view of Fitzsimmons et al. (US 10,078,096 B2).
Regarding claim 3 (similarly claim 11 and claim 16), the combination of Shin and Baxi teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: performing, by the computer, a diagnostic scan of a setup of the workstation corresponding to the user using the streaming data received from the set of sensors (Shin paragraph [0047] "system 100 can include an option enabling user 101 to set a custom reference posture score specific to the user. In this example, system 100 can prompt user 101, such as through output 560, requesting the user to sit or stand up in an upright position. System 100 can additionally provide a number of prompts to refine this custom posture score"); and
determining, by the computer, the ideal ergonomic setup corresponding to the target correct posture (Shin paragraph [0046] "an ideal posture position can be depicted by the posture position of user 101 in FIG. 1 and graphic triangle 200' in FIG. 5. Using the weighted algorithm, system 100 can use the measurements of graphic triangle 400' to determine that the reference posture score is 50") of the user at the workstation (Baxi column 3 lines 11-14 "The reference ergonomic boundary may comprise stored data (stored on or off the computing device) representing established ergonomic boundaries") based on the diagnostic scan of the setup of the workstation (Shin paragraph [0047] "system 100 can include an option enabling user 101 to set a custom reference posture score specific to the user. In this example, system 100 can prompt user 101, such as through output 560, requesting the user to sit or stand up in an upright position. System 100 can additionally provide a number of prompts to refine this custom posture score. These additional prompts can include requesting user 101 maintain the upright position for a period of time, such as one or two minutes"), predefined posture guidelines, physical attributes of the user (Baxi column 3 lines 14-19 "The reference ergonomic boundary may also comprise ergonomic boundaries specific for the user. For example, the user may have characteristics that prevent him from operating the computing device within the established ergonomic boundary ( e.g., a medical condition preventing "ideal" posture)")“.
However, the combination of Shin and Baxi does not teach the target correct posture of the user workstation is based on “attributes of a set of ergonomic furniture associated with the workstation”.
Fitzsimmons teaches “attributes of a set of ergonomic furniture associated with the workstation (Fitzsimmons column 19 lines 45-46 "Step 8111, observe work practice to determine keyboard use and work bias with neutral spine posture" and lines 60-65 "Start HIP-TORQUE™ application; manually enter ID data, testing details as needed, and initial chair height. In step 8116b, instruct subject to change chair height and repeat step 8116a with feet stable at several chair heights from too high to too low").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine an
posture correction system of a user using sensor information related to various workstation items as taught by Shin and Baxi to include information of workstation items in relation to the ideal posture as taught by Fitzsimmons.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been "By identifying body postures that are "neutral" for the lower back (the lumbar spine), and adjusting the
configuration of objects in the workstation, stresses on the lumbar vertebrae can be minimized, the overall posture more aligned with gravity, and thereby decreasing injury risk factors on other portions of a person's body. Improved posture can reduce injury risk factors and lower symptoms of pain and dysfunction, improving performance" as noted by the Fitzsimmons disclosure in column 2, lines 31-38.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Shin and Baxi with the Fitzsimmons disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4 (similarly claim 12 and claim 17), the combination of Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: monitoring, by the computer, for the variations in the physical positions of the user at the workstation based on a real time analysis (Shin paragraph [0055] "the system can provide consistent real-time information of a user's posture to the user using commonly owned devices, such as earbuds and a mobile device") of the streaming data received from the set of sensors (Shin paragraph [0039] "Turning to block 520, one or more processors of system 100, such as processor 430 of device 400, can calculate at least one first measurement based on the first signal and at least one second measurement based on the second signal"); and
determining, by the computer, the differences between the variations in the
physical positions of the user at the workstation and the ideal ergonomic setup
corresponding to the target correct posture of the user at the workstation (Shin paragraph [0054] "As user 101 continues sitting there, their posture may start deviating from the upright position until the user enters a slouched position, as depicted in FIG. 2. System 100 can determine that the posture score of this slouched position deviates a threshold amount from the reference posture score and, where user 101 maintains this position for a predetermined period of time, the system can send a notification to the user informing them that their position is no longer upright").
Regarding claim 7 (similarly claim 20), the combination of Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer automatically performs the set of remediation actions on a set of ergonomic furniture associated with the workstation in real time (Fitzsimmons column 19 lines 24-33 "FIG. 8A depicts Automated Adjustment 809, which can be effected by the data elicited from the chair height and workstation adjustments, so that where possible, a motor controller or servo-controller to adjusts a work surface with individual IP addresses can compare chair and work surface (e.g., table or keyboard) heights and movements to determine desirable height and movement patterns for different users, with work tasks and time of day to minimize awkward, sustained postures and maximize productivity") to correct a posture of the user in accordance with the target correct posture (Baxi column 3 lines 26-33 "If the user is not within the reference ergonomic boundary, processing is executed to determine an adjustment for the user to make so that the ergonomic characteristic of the user is within the reference ergonomic boundary, 130. This adjustment may comprise an adjustment to the physical ergonomics of the user, an adjustment to the device, or both. The above processing may be executed via the computing device, or via backend processing").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons references presented in the rejection of claim 3, applies to claim 7. Finally the method recited in claim 7 is met by Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the set of ergonomic furniture is a set of smart ergonomic furniture, each piece of smart ergonomic furniture includes an adjusting component that receives control signals from the computer (Fitzsimmons column 19 lines 24-33 "FIG. 8A depicts Automated Adjustment 809, which can be effected by the data elicited from the chair height and workstation adjustments, so that where possible, a motor controller or servo-controller to adjusts a work surface with individual IP addresses can compare chair and work surface (e.g., table or keyboard) heights and movements to determine desirable height and movement patterns for different users, with work tasks and time of day to minimize awkward, sustained postures and maximize productivity") to correct the posture of the user in accordance with the target correct posture (Baxi column 3 lines 26-33 "This adjustment may comprise an adjustment to the physical ergonomics of the user, an adjustment to the device, or both. The above processing may be executed via the computing device, or via backend processing").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons references presented in the rejection of claim 3, applies to claim 8. Finally the method recited in claim 8 is met by Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons.
Claims 5-6, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons in view of Boss et al. (US 2020/0394556 A1).
Regarding claim 5 (similarly claim 13 and claim 18), the combination of Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons teaches the method of claim 4. However, the combination of Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons does not teach “the computer utilizes a machine learning model to determine the ideal ergonomic setup corresponding to the target correct posture of the user at the workstation and the differences between the variations in the physical positions of the user at the workstation and the ideal ergonomic setup corresponding to the target correct posture of the user at the workstation.”
Boss teaches “the computer utilizes a machine learning model to determine the ideal ergonomic setup corresponding to the target correct posture of the user at the workstation and the differences between the variations in the physical positions of the user at the workstation and the ideal ergonomic setup corresponding to the target correct posture of the user at the workstation (Boss paragraph [0037] "At step 210, the ergonomic analysis application constructs a machine learning knowledge model based upon the plurality of posture datapoints associated with the multiple clients in order to identify a plurality of predefined ergonomic support design elements").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine an
posture correction system of a user using sensor information related to various workstation items as taught by Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons to include machine learning model for determine ideal ergonomic design of a workstation as taught by Boss.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been "Certain individuals may need ergonomic support beyond what is provided by a given seat component. Specifically, a seat component may not adequately address posture issues and/or medical conditions associated with an individual. Additionally, a seat component may not adequately address ergonomic support at certain pressure points of an individual. Furthermore, a seat component may not adequately address respective individual preferences or needs in terms of comfort or functionality" as noted by the Boss disclosure in paragraph 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Shin, Baxi, and Fitzsimmons with the Boss disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 19), the combination of Shin, Baxi, Fitzsimmons, and Boss teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein inputs to the machine learning model include the streaming data received from the set of sensors (Boss Figure 1 and paragraph [0037] "At step 210, the ergonomic analysis application constructs a machine learning knowledge model based upon the plurality of posture datapoints associated with the multiple clients in order to identify a plurality of predefined ergonomic support design elements").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for Shin, Baxi, Fitzsimmons, and Boss references presented in the rejection of claim 5, applies to claim 6. Finally the method recited in claim 6 is met by Shin, Baxi, Fitzsimmons, and Boss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662