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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination
This is non final.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for provisional application priority date filed on 12/08/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 03/10/2026 ,12/30/2025, 10/07/2025, 07/08/2025, 06/18/2025, 05/28/2025, 04/18/2025, 03/12/2025, 01/03/2025, 10/28/2024, 10/28/2024, 08/13/2024, 02/27/2024, 10/27/2023, 09/05/2023, 08/16/2023, 06/21/2023, and on 04/12/2023 are considered.
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 claim invention recites a
judicial exception, which is directed to that judicial exception of an abstract idea, as it
has not been integrated into practical application and the claim further do not recite
significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Yes: claims 1-11 are directed to a method and 12-19 are directed to a system, which fall within the statutory category of process, while claim 20 is also fall under a statutory category of machine.
Step 2A: prong One: Yes
Claims 1, 3,5 -7,9, 12, 13,15 -17, 19 -20 recites an abstract idea, and those abstract ideas are bolded below.
Regarding Clam 1:
receiving process planning data for an operator performing a task; (insignificant extra solution activity – data gathering)
using the received process planning data, generating a posture for the operator to perform the task in a certain real-world environment; under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can make a posture of a real-world worker by using the gathered information by the help of pen and paper, by observing, evaluating or making judgment.
processing the generated posture using a hierarchical decision tree to determine ergonomic risk of the posture in the certain real-world environment; ; under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can make a hierarchical decision tree as it shown on the drawing on Fig 4-7, by using a pen and paper in order to make judgment on posture to determine the type of ergonomic risk by evaluating the criteria.
outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user: under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can show the result of evaluation based on the gathered information and evaluations made on the above limitations by using a pen and paper.
claim 12 and 20 are also recites in the same scope with claim 1 with additional elements which is analyzed on prong two.
Regarding Claim 3:
evaluating existence of multiple risk types of the posture in a hierarchical order of the multiple risk types; under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can make evaluation on the existence of risk type by making judgment.
upon determining a given risk type of the multiple risk types exists, stopping the evaluating; under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can observe if a risk type exists and if so , a person of ordinary skill in the art can stop evaluating by making judgment.
outputting the indication of the determined ergonomic risk, wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk includes an indication of the given risk type: under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can show the indication of ergonomic risk after performing evaluation and judgment on the previous limitations. This can be done by a human mind by making observation, judgment, evaluation or opinion.
Claim 13 is also in the same scope of claim 3 and it recites abstract ideas in the same scope as that of claim 3 with additional elements which is analyzed on prong two.
Regarding Claim 5:
comparing weight of an object grasped by the operator performing the task to a threshold, wherein a value of the threshold changes based upon the object being grasped with one hand or two hands, and determining the object weight risk type exists if the weight of the object exceeds the threshold: under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can compare the weight of an object with threshold in order to make a judgment if the weight of an object exceeds the threshold, so this claim limitations can be performed by a human mind with the help of pen and paper by performing evaluation and judgement.
Claim 15 is also in the same scope of claim 5 and it recites abstract ideas in the same scope as that of claim 5 with additional elements which is analyzed on prong two.
Regarding claim 6:
determining at least one of back joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load of the operator in the generated posture;(insignificant extra solution activity – data gathering)
comparing the determined at least one of back joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load to a threshold; and determining the joint load risk type exists if the determined at least one of back joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load exceeds the threshold: under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can compare the joint load of an object with threshold in order to make a judgment, so this claim limitations can be performed by a human mind with the help of pen and paper by performing evaluation and judgement.
Claim 16 is also in the same scope of claim 6, and it recites abstract ideas in the same scope as that of claim 6 with additional elements which is analyzed on prong two.
Regarding claim 7
comparing at least one of shoulder angle, trunk angle, neck angle, wrist angle, and forearm angle of the operator in the generated posture to respective thresholds; and determining the joint angle risk type exists if at least one of the shoulder angle, trunk angle, neck angle, wrist angle, and forearm angle exceed a respective threshold: This claim also recites abstract ideas in the same concept with that of claim 5 and 6. Under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can compare the angle of a shoulder with threshold in order to make a judgment, so this claim limitations can be performed by a human mind with the help of pen and paper by performing evaluation and judgement.
Claim 17 is also in the same scope of claim 7 and it recites abstract ideas in the same scope as that of claim 7. with additional elements which is analyzed on prong two.
Regarding claim 9:
determining the suggestion by searching a mapping between risk types, risk locations, and suggestions, wherein the determined suggestion is mapped to a given risk type and a given risk location of the determined ergonomic risk: Under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can make suggestions by observing and evaluating the risk type. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art can make a judgement on the amount of load should a person lift to decrease back pain or any other risk locations.
Claim 19 is also in the same scope of claim 9, and it recites abstract ideas in the same scope as that of claim 9 with additional elements which is analyzed on prong two.
Step 2A: Prong two: No
The above judicially exceptions do not recite additional elements that integrate the exceptions into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not have additional elements of a combination of additional elements that apply, rely or use the judicial exception in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Claims recites gathering data which is insignificant extra solution activity. Adding
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in
conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract
mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1, 12 and 20: receiving process planning data for an operator performing a task; (insignificant extra solution activity – data gathering)
Claim 2: wherein the process planning data includes at least one of: physical characteristics of a workstation in the certain real-world environment at which the task is performed; physical characteristics of the operator; and
characteristics of the task.( this claim defines the type of data used to perform the abstract activity without any significant additional element ,insignificant extra solution activity).
Claim 6 and 16 : determining at least one of back joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load of the operator in the generated posture;(insignificant extra solution activity – data gathering)
Claim 10, implementing the suggestion in the certain real-world environment: (insignificant extra solution activity)
Claim 11: receiving a measurement from a sensor in the certain real world
environment in which the task is performed.
In the claims 1, 12 and 20, the claims recite additional elements of processor, memory , a non-transitory computer program, and computer readable medium, is used to merely implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not integrating of abstract idea into practical application and to apply on a physical system (MPEP 2106(f). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 4, 8, 14 and 18 further narrows the abstract ideas by further
defining the abstract concepts from the independent claim and they do not introduce
further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The
abstract ideas and insignificant extra activities are listed below for the above dependent
claims.
As of claim 4 and 14, wherein the hierarchical order of the multiple risk types, in order from first evaluated to last evaluated includes: object weight risk type, hand position risk type, joint load risk type, and body joint angle risk type (under its broadest interpretation this claim limitation narrow the abstract idea of evaluating the decision three by listing the type of risk the claim focused, so a person of ordinary skill in the art can perform evaluation of the risk type by using a decision tree as it was explained on claim 1 and 3).
As of claim 8 and 18, wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk includes at least one of: a risk type; a risk location; a risk level; and a suggestion to lower risk (under its broadest interpretation this claim limitation narrow the abstract idea of claim 1. As it was explained on claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the risk type by evaluating, analyzing and making judgment based on the decision tree and , gathered information. So by evaluating and making judgment, a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the location or type or, level of risk.
Step 2B: No,
The claims do not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above the claims merely use a computer components as a tool to perform abstract ideas. Merly using of a computer and applying abstract idea into a system without making improvement to the functionality of a computer is not significantly more.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas as recited in the
independent claim and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the scope of
abstract ideas and fails to add significantly more than the claims.
Therefore claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 based on the above prong analysis.
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 1 - 2, 8, 11 – 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Taehyun. “An Early-Stage Development of Posture Model: To Prevent Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders on Construction Sites”. Diss. Seoul National University Graduate School, 2014, in the view of HSE (Health and Safety Executive). "Manual handling assessment charts (the MAC tool)." (2014).
As of claim 1 Kim teaches, A computer-implemented method of assessing ergonomic risk, the method comprising, by a processor:(section 3.2, Computer-aided model that simulate human reach postures and motions have been widely researched in the fields of kinesiology and ergonomics… This model implements MATLAB programming language. In this model, three inputs are considered: (1) Physical information of worker, (2) object location and (3) obstruction information) receiving process planning data for an operator performing a task;(section 3.1, the development process of the M2B2P model in this study is based on observation of brickmason on construction sites. This model implements MATLAB programming language. In this model, three inputs are considered: (1) Physical information of worker, (2) object location and (3) obstruction information))
using the received process planning data, generating a posture for the operator to perform the task in a certain real-world environment;(section 1.1, Figure 1-2 : (1) Develop the M2B2P model in order to automatically generate postures of construction workers. (2) Propose for improvements on construction worker’s typical workspace and investigate a method to improve the real-life worksite obstruction information in the model and (3) Validate and evaluate the M2B2P model by integrating Augmented Reality (AR) in order to establish the prototype of real-time posture monitoring system of the construction workers).
Kim does not explicitly teach processing the generated posture using a hierarchical decision tree to determine ergonomic risk of the posture in the
certain real-world environment; and outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user.
While HSE(Health and Safety Executive) teaches processing the generated posture using a hierarchical decision tree to determine ergonomic risk of the posture in the certain real-world environment;( page 6, manual handling assessment chart
PNG
media_image1.png
851
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown on the above chart it analyzes ergonomic risk using a hieratical decision tree structure for a lifting operation which is a real-world activity by using a color code to determine the level of risk on each risk type.
outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user: (page 3-5, it displays the posture with color code for each ergonomic risk level for example of section B, for “Hand distance from the lower back” sows below
PNG
media_image2.png
184
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
HSE manual and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since they focus on ergonomic assessment. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine HSE handling manual of a hierarchal decision tree structure to analyses and output the risk indication using different planning data which is gathered from Kim.
The motivation would have been to help identify which risk factors need to be examined and the total level of exposure to risk in order to identify and then reduce the overall level of risk of the task ( HSE, page 2).
Claim 12 is also in the same scope with claim one with additional elements of the claim and Kim teaches a processor, a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, being configured to cause the system to (Section 3.3.3, Overall cell construction process took about 6 hours for the human figure representation when running a MATLAB program on a laptop computer with an Intel Core i7 CPU), as it listed above Kim use a computer with Core i7 CPU to generate a posture, so inherently a computer have a memory. Therefore claim 12 is also rejected as of claim 1.
As of claim 2, the combined model of Kim and HSE teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Kim also teaches wherein the process planning data includes at least one of: physical characteristics of a workstation in the certain real-world environment at which the task is performed; physical characteristics of the operator; and characteristics of the task: ( section 1.2, The M2B2P Model will require construction worker information (i.e. physical information, job type and repetitive motion frequency) and construction workspace information (i.e. obstruction location and object location)).
As of claim 8, the combined model of Kim and HSE teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and HSE also teaches wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk includes at least one of: a risk type; a risk location; a risk level; and a suggestion to lower risk ( Page 2,
PNG
media_image3.png
213
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
Claim 18 is also in the same scope with claim 8, so it is rejected under the same rational.
As of claim 11, the combined model of Kim and HSE teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Kim also teaches wherein receiving the process planning data comprises: receiving a measurement from a sensor in the certain real-world environment in which the task is performed ( section 3.1.1 the algorithms which output feasible postures are coded with MATLAB. Also, motion data for brick laying activities is collected. This motion data is recorded and extracted using a single Microsoft Kinect sensor and the iPiSoft Motion Capture solution).
Claims 3 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Taehyun. “An Early-Stage Development of Posture Model: To Prevent Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders on Construction Sites”. Diss. Seoul National University Graduate School, 2014, in the view of HSE (Health and Safety Executive). "Manual handling assessment charts (the MAC tool)." (2014) further in the view of Wang, Jingwen, SangHyeok Han, and Xinming Li. "3D fuzzy ergonomic analysis for rapid workplace design and modification in construction." Automation in construction 123 (2021):
As of claim 3, the combined model of Kim and HSE teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and HSE also teaches wherein processing the generated posture using the hierarchical decision tree to determine ergonomic risk of the posture comprises: evaluating existence of multiple risk types of the posture in a hierarchical order of the multiple risk types; ( page 2 – 13, flow chart as shown above on claim 1, evaluates different risk type in different operation, for example for lifting operation on page 6, it evaluates risk starting from load weight/ frequency to other environmental factors).
The combined model does not explicitly teach upon determining a given risk type of the multiple risk types exists, stopping the evaluating and outputting the indication of the determined ergonomic risk, wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk includes an indication of the given risk type.
While Wang teaches upon determining a given risk type of the multiple risk types exists, stopping the evaluating; (Fig 2.
PNG
media_image4.png
557
1022
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As shown on figure 2 it checks if the REBA and RULA rating satisfies the risk value and if it does it stop evaluating the posture and output the risk rating and information output.
outputting the indication of the determined ergonomic risk, wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk includes an indication of the given risk type(Fig.2 output information, the risk types REBA and RULA, and “ “introduction”, The output results include interim risk scores of body parts and integrated body segments and an aggregate risk score for each manual task).
Wang is considered to be analogous to the combined model and the claimed invention, since they focused on ergonomic analysis. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Wangs teaching of evaluating posture model until it satisfies a risk score and output the risk type with the combined model to evaluate multi risk type.
The motivation would have been its improved accuracy and reliability for ergonomic risk assessment. The results of the analysis are expected to facilitate the enhancement of safety performance, production performance, and market competitiveness in industrialized construction(Wang, abstract).
Claim 13 is also in the same scope as claim 3 and all the limitations of claim 12 is also in the same scope with claim 1 with additional elements which is already teaches by Kim as listed above on claim 1, therefore claim 13 is also rejected under the same rational with claim 3.
Claims 4, 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Taehyun. “An Early-Stage Development of Posture Model: To Prevent Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders on Construction Sites”. Diss. Seoul National University Graduate School, 2014, in the view of HSE (Health and Safety Executive). "Manual handling assessment charts (the MAC tool)." (2014) in the view of Wang, Jingwen, SangHyeok Han, and Xinming Li. "3D fuzzy ergonomic analysis for rapid workplace design and modification in construction." Automation in construction 123 (2021),further in the view of Genaidy, A. M., A. A. Al-Shedi, and R. L. Shell. "Ergonomic risk assessment: preliminary guidelines for analysis of repetition, force and posture." Journal of human ergology 22.1 (1993).
As of claim 4 the combined model of Kim, HSE and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and HSE also teaches wherein the hierarchical order of the multiple risk types, in order from first evaluated to last evaluated includes: object weight risk type, hand position risk type, (page 6, for lifting operation it includes different risk types including load weight/ frequency, hand distance from lower back , Torso twisting and sideways bending, postural constraints, grip on the load), and Wang also teaches body joint angle risk type (section 3.3, for the ergonomic risk assessment. For automation and reliability purposes, a total of 41 joint angles covering the sagittal plane, frontal plane, transverse plane, and axial rotation are extracted and stored in a database for 3D modeling)
The combined model doesn’t explicitly teach joint load risk type, while Genaidy teaches joint load risk type ( page 49, table 3, analyzing of epidemiology studies by force, joints hand/wrist, and back).
Genaidy is considered to be analogous to the modified model and the claim invention, they focused on ergonomic analysis. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to analyze joint load risk by including in the hierarchal decision tree of the modified model.
The motivation would have been in order to evaluation of ergonomic deficiencies in the workplace depends upon the following steps: (1) categorizing each risk factor (i.e., repetition, force, or body posture) into several levels based on the knowledge of the action limit and maximum permissible limit; and (2) computation of the ergonomic stress index (ESI) in order to integrate the interactive effects of repetition, force, and body posture.(Genaidy, page 50).
Claim 14 is also in the same scope as that of claim 4, therefore claim 14 is also rejected under the same rational to claim 4.
As of claim 6, the combined model teaches all the limitations of claim 4, and Genaidy also teaches wherein evaluating existence of the joint load risk type comprises: determining at least one of back joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load of the operator in the generated posture: ( page 48 and table 3, Force. Force was analyzed based on both epidemiological and biomechanical studies. The results are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. It is evident from these tables that the values based on epidemiological data are much higher than those based on biomechanical studies. Thus, the static force guidelines were based on (1) biomechanical studies for the action limit and (2) epidemiological criteria for the maximum permissible limit. An action limit of 3.2% was considered as the action limit for an 8-h work day based on the literature reported by SJOGAARD (1986) (Table 4). Assuming the MPL is equal to 3 AL, then the MPL will be equal to 9.6%.
PNG
media_image5.png
441
944
media_image5.png
Greyscale
comparing the determined at least one of back joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load to a threshold (page 46 and page 49 table 3 as shown above “odd ratio”, (1) those below the AL are believed to represent nominal risk to most of the industrial workforce, (2) those above the MPL should be viewed as unacceptable and require engineering controls, and (3) those between the AL and MPL are unacceptable without administrative or engineering controls).
determining the joint load risk type exists if the determined at least one of back joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load exceeds the threshold ( page 50 -52, Exposure scale. Each risk factor is categorized according to the action limit and maximum permissible limit into five levels. The repetitiveness of movements are defined as: very low (0-0.5 AL), low (0.6 AL-1.0 AL), moderate (1.1 AL-2.0 AL), high (2.1 AL-3.0 AL), and very high (3.1 AL+). The heaviness of force can be described according to the following levels: very light (0-0.5 AL or 0%-1.6%), light (0.6 AL-1.0 AL or 1.7%-3.2%), moderate (1.1 AL-2.0 AL or 3.3 %-6.4%), heavy (2.1 AL-3.0 AL or 6.5%-9.6%), and very heavy (3.1 AL or 9.7k %) … elbow, shoulder, and neck: very low (0-473), low (474-946), moderate (947-1,893), high (1,894-2,838), and very high (2,839+). Each exposure level is assigned a numerical value to transform the different units used to measure the heaviness/severity of each risk factor into unitless measures. This will allow us to compute the interactive effects of the three risk factors as).
Genaidy is considered to be analogous to the modified model and the claim invention, they focused on ergonomic analysis. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to analyze joint load risk on any of the body joints as Genaidy teaches on hand/wrist and back joint to the modified model.
The motivation would have been in order to evaluation of ergonomic deficiencies in the workplace depends upon the following steps: (1) categorizing each risk factor (i.e., repetition, force, or body posture) into several levels based on the knowledge of the action limit and maximum permissible limit; and (2) computation of the ergonomic stress index (ESI) in order to integrate the interactive effects of repetition, force, and body posture.(Genaidy, page 50)
Claim 16 is also in the same scope as that of claim 6, therefore claim 16 is also rejected under the same rational to claim 6.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Taehyun. “An Early-Stage Development of Posture Model: To Prevent Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders on Construction Sites”. Diss. Seoul National University Graduate School, 2014, in the view of HSE (Health and Safety Executive). "Manual handling assessment charts (the MAC tool)." (2014) in the view of Wang, Jingwen, SangHyeok Han, and Xinming Li. "3D fuzzy ergonomic analysis for rapid workplace design and modification in construction." Automation in construction 123 (2021),further in the view of Genaidy, A. M., A. A. Al-Shedi, and R. L. Shell. "Ergonomic risk assessment: preliminary guidelines for analysis of repetition, force and posture." Journal of human ergology 22.1 (1993), further in the view of Weston, Eric B., et al. "One versus two-handed lifting and lowering: lumbar spine loads and recommended one-handed limits protecting the lower back." Ergonomics 63.4 (2020):
As of claim 5, the combined model of Kim, HSE, Wang and Genaidy teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but the combined model does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5 . While Weston teaches wherein evaluating existence of the object weight risk type comprises: comparing weight of an object grasped by the operator performing the task to a threshold, wherein a value of the threshold changes based upon the object being grasped with one hand or two hands:( page 510 - 513, table 2, and page 516, table 4 and 5, Peak spinal load estimates for the 50th population percentile and 80th population percentile were then related to risk thresholds for spinal loading (3400N compression or 700 N A/P shear reported by Waters et al. (1993) and Gallagher and Marras (2012), respectively)….Overall risk assignments for each of the conditions tested are shown in Table 4, while recommended weight limits (representing the low-medium and medium-high risk transition points) are shown in Table 5.
PNG
media_image6.png
615
1100
media_image6.png
Greyscale
--
PNG
media_image7.png
370
810
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As shown above on table 5, the weight limit as a threshold is used and for example for waist, 40cm distance , have a weight limit of up to 11.3 kg for medium risk , if it is over this limit, it has a high risk well the modified NIOSH lifting equation (RNLE) (page 517, the results of this study suggest that halving the load constant for two hands (23 kg) may be an incorrect simplifying assumption) Even though Weston says RNLE calculation for two hand may be incorrect, it still confirms that, it is using a different weight limit for one hand and two hand in NIOSH.
determining the object weight risk type exists if the weight of the object exceeds the threshold( page 516, table 5, As shown on table 5 above , it determines the existence of risk on load imposed upon lumbar spine with height and asymmetry of body parts).
Weston is considered to be analogous to the combined model and the claimed invention , since they focus on ergonomic analysis. Therefore it would be obvious to compare the object weight with the threshold in order to determine the existence of risk type as Weston teaches the load limit for one hand and two hand and it also determine the risk level for lower back.
The motivation would have been to quantify loads imposed upon the lumbar spine while lifting/lowering with one versus two hands and to create guidelines for one-handed lifting/lowering that are protective of the lower back (Weston, abstract).
Claim 15 is also in the same scope as that of claim 5, therefore claim 15 is also rejected under the same rational to claim 5.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Taehyun. “An Early-Stage Development of Posture Model: To Prevent Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders on Construction Sites”. Diss. Seoul National University Graduate School, 2014, in the view of HSE (Health and Safety Executive). "Manual handling assessment charts (the MAC tool)." (2014) in the view of Wang, Jingwen, SangHyeok Han, and Xinming Li. "3D fuzzy ergonomic analysis for rapid workplace design and modification in construction." Automation in construction 123 (2021),further in the view of Genaidy, A. M., A. A. Al-Shedi, and R. L. Shell. "Ergonomic risk assessment: preliminary guidelines for analysis of repetition, force and posture." Journal of human ergology 22.1 (1993) further in the view of Humadi, Ahmed, et al. "Instrumented ergonomic risk assessment using wearable inertial measurement units: Impact of joint angle convention." IEEE Access 9 (2020).
As of claim 7, the combined model of Kim, HSE, Wang and Genaidy teaches all the limitations of claim 4 but they do not explicitly teach evaluating of joint angle risk type by comparing least one of shoulder angle, trunk angle, neck angle, wrist angle, and forearm angle of the operator in the generated posture to respective thresholds and determining the joint angle risk type exists based on the evaluation.
While Humadi teaches a wherein evaluating existence of the joint angle risk type comprises: comparing at least one of shoulder angle, trunk angle, neck angle, wrist angle, and forearm angle of the operator in the generated posture to respective thresholds:(Section C, “RULA score implementation”, we computed the RULA score at each time instant during the trials, according to Table 1 and RULA sheet [11]. Notably, for upper-arm, elbow, neck, and trunk flexion/extension, we compared the calculated angular positions for each segment with the pre-defined thresholds in the RULA sheet.
PNG
media_image8.png
295
406
media_image8.png
Greyscale
determining the joint angle risk type exists if at least one of the shoulder angle, trunk angle, neck angle, wrist angle, and forearm angle exceed a respective threshold ( Section 1, “introduction”, In particular, the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) is a physical risk assessment tool that evaluates the WMDs risk factors related to the trunk, neck and upper-limb based on the posture's observations [11]. This
method quantifies the posture risks as a single score ranging from 1 (low risk) to 7 (high risk) by applying pre-defined thresholds to segments' angular position and provides suggestions accordingly: Scores 1 and 2: Acceptable posture. Scores 3 and 4: Further investigation, change may be needed. Scores 5 and 6: Further investigation, change soon. Score 7: Investigate and implement change).
Humadi is considered to be analogous to the modified model and the claimed invention since they focused on ergonomic risk assessment. Therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Humadi’s teaching of joint angle analysis on the modified model.
The motivation would have been by using Wearable IMUs and assessing angle of joints, have a great potential for in field measurement of RULA scores to improve the ergonomic risk assessment's accuracy and reliability( Humadi, discussion).
Claim 17 is also in the same scope as that of claim 7, therefore claim 17 is also rejected under the same rational to claim 7.
Claims 9 - 10 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Taehyun. “An Early-Stage Development of Posture Model: To Prevent Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders on Construction Sites”. Diss. Seoul National University Graduate School, 2014, in the view of HSE (Health and Safety Executive). "Manual handling assessment charts (the MAC tool)." (2014) in the view of Aqlan; Faisal (US 20160148132).
As of claim 9, the combined model of Kim and HSE teaches all the limitations of claim 8, but they don’t explicitly teach wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk includes the suggestion and the method further comprises: determining the suggestion by searching a mapping between risk types, risk locations, and suggestions, wherein the determined suggestion is mapped to a given risk type and a given risk location of the determined ergonomic risk.
While Aqlan teaches wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk includes the suggestion and the method further comprises: determining the suggestion by searching a mapping between risk types, risk locations, and suggestions, wherein the determined suggestion is mapped to a given risk type and a given risk location of the determined ergonomic risk ( para 37 -40, Based on the risk score and impact, a response strategy may be implemented. Response strategies are risk mitigation responses. In one embodiment, risk response strategies can be classified into five categories. Examples of such strategies include, but are not limited to risk avoidance, risk reduction, risk transfer, risk acceptance, and ignoring risk. Each of these risk factors can be identified by observations and measurement…. In one embodiment, additional metrics may be identified, and as such, the metrics identified herein are not to be considered limiting. A fourth field (840) illustrates the body risk map (842), as shown and described in detail in FIG. 6. A fifth field (850) illustrates the total process risk, including energy expenditure (852), hand-arm vibration (854), whole body vibration (856), noise score (858), illumination score (860), temperature (862), posture score (864), and low back force (866)… For each identified risk, there may be aspects of the risk that may be eligible for reduction, so as to minimize or otherwise eliminate identified risk. Referring to FIG. 9, a block diagram (900) is provided illustrating an interface for implementing risk mitigation)
Aqlan is considered to be analogous to the modified model and the claimed invention, since they focused on ergonomic risk assessment. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Aqlan’s teaching of determining suggestions based on the risk score on the modified model in order to determine a suggestion for a given risk type and location.
The motivation would have been by performing ergonomic assessment combines ergonomics with workload assignment, with the improvement lending itself to increased workload efficiency. Specifically, ergonomic risk is minimized based on consideration of one or more mitigation strategies, their effectiveness, and ease of implementation (Aqlan, para 68).
Claim 19 is also in the same scope as that of claim 9, therefore claim 19 is also rejected under the same rational to claim 9.
As of clam 10, the modified model of Kim, HSE and Aqlan teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and Aqlan also teaches implementing the suggestion in the certain real-world environment (para 36 -37, Controls are implemented to eliminate or reduce ergonomic risks, including: administrative controls, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. To mitigate ergonomic risks, the possible controls that can be used are identified. The following table illustrates risk category and associated controls:
PNG
media_image9.png
415
622
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As of claim 20, Kim teaches also receiving process planning data for an operator performing a task;(section 3.1, the development process of the M2B2P model in this study is based on observation of brickmason on construction sites. This model implements MATLAB programming language. In this model, three inputs are considered: (1) Physical information of worker, (2) object location and (3) obstruction information))
using the received process planning data, generating a posture for the operator to perform the task in a certain real-world environment;(section 1.1, Figure 1-2 : (1) Develop the M2B2P model in order to automatically generate postures of construction workers. (2) Propose for improvements on construction worker’s typical workspace and investigate a method to improve the real-life worksite obstruction information in the model and (3) Validate and evaluate the M2B2P model by integrating Augmented Reality (AR) in order to establish the prototype of real-time posture monitoring system of the construction workers).
Kim does not explicitly teach processing the generated posture using a hierarchical decision tree to determine ergonomic risk of the posture in the
certain real-world environment; and outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user, a computer program product and a computer readable medium
While HSE(Health and Safety Executive) teaches processing the generated posture using a hierarchical decision tree to determine ergonomic risk of the posture in the certain real-world environment;( page 6, manual handling assessment chart
PNG
media_image1.png
851
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown on the above chart it analyzes ergonomic risk using a hieratical decision tree structure for a lifting operation which is a real-world activity by using a color code to determine the level of risk on each risk type.
outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user: (page 3-5, it displays the posture with color code for each ergonomic risk level for example of section B, for “Hand distance from the lower back” sows below
PNG
media_image2.png
184
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
HSE manual and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since they focus on ergonomic assessment. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine HSE handling manual of a hierarchal decision tree structure to analyses and output the risk indication using different planning data which is gathered from Kim.
The motivation would have been to help identify which risk factors need to be examined and the total level of exposure to risk in order to identify and then reduce the overall level of risk of the task ( HSE, page 2).
The combined model does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer program product for assessing ergonomic risk, the computer program product executed by a server in communication across a network with one or more client, a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium comprising program instructions which, when executed by a processor.
While Aqlan teaches A non-transitory computer program product for assessing ergonomic risk, the computer program product executed by a server in communication across a network with one or more client, a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium comprising program instructions which, when executed by a processor (para 05, The invention includes a method, computer program product, and system for minimizing ergonomic risk based on one or more mitigation strategies and implementation thereof, [45],The computer (1010) is in communication with one or more additional machines (1050), referred to herein as a server, across a network connection (1005), [59],The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computer program product. The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention).
Aqlan is considered to be analogous to the modified model and the claimed invention, since they focused on ergonomic risk assessment. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Aqlan’s teaching of a non-transitory computer program product for assessing ergonomic risk, the computer program product executed by a server in communication across a network with one or more client in order to perform ergonomic risk assessment.
The motivation would have been by performing ergonomic assessment combines ergonomics with workload assignment, with the improvement lending itself to increased workload efficiency. Specifically, ergonomic risk is minimized based on consideration of one or more mitigation strategies, their effectiveness, and ease of implementation (Aqlan, para 68).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SMITH; DAVID R (US 20080109271 A1, Date Published 2008-05-08), this application is also similar with the claimed invention since it also focusses on an ergonomic risk score of each task is generated. A determination is made if the ergonomic risk score is acceptable.
Chang; Andrew Robertv ( US 20170344919 A1, Date Published 2017-11-30) this application is also similar with the claimed invention since it also focusses on a system for ergonomic monitoring in an industrial environment functions to capture and coordinate ergonomic information collected by at least one worker performing tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571 272 4071. 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.
/ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188