DETAILED ACTION
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 based on amendment filed on 06/24/2026.
Claims 1-20, 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Claims 1 – 4, 8, 11 -14, 18 and 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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015).
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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015), 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):
Claims 6 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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015), further in the Genaidy, A M., A A AI-Shedi, and R. L. Shell. "Ergonomic risk assessment: preliminary guidelines for analysis of repetition, force and posture." Journal of human ergology 22.1 (1993).
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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015), further in the Humadi, Ahmed, et al. "Instrumented ergonomic risk assessment using wearable inertial measurement units: Impact of joint angle convention." IEEE Access 9 (2020).
Claims 9-10 and 19 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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015), further in the Aqlan; Faisal (US 20160148132).
This action is final rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 06/24/2026 and 07/15/2026 are reviewed and considered. See attached documents.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s argument: Applicant respectfully asserts that Claim 1 provides improvement to technology (claimed invention clearly improves existing functionality for computer-based simulation/ergonomic assessment) and thus, is integrated into a practical application. Therefore, Applicant submits Claim 1 is patent eligible per the USPTO guidance.
Examiner’s response: The examiner disagrees that claim 1 improvement to technology, and thus, is integrated into a practical application. As of claim 1, an abstract idea of generating a posture is performed through computer simulation, which is using a computer as a tool to implement abstract idea in step 2B and a digital human model representing the operator is also insignificant extra activity – WURC, MPEP 2106.05(d) because using of DHM is a well know according to [0006]-[0007] of the specification. According to that claim there is no improvement on the computer or DHM is recited. Improvement should be made on additional elements which are not differentiated as abstract ideas and the applicant has not pointed out or recited additional element on the claim that integrated the abstract idea into practical application or improvement on the additional elements MPEP 2106.05(a): "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements... " Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, "an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology."
Therefore 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained and see 35 USC 101 for more.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed at the 103 rejections are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejections of the claims below.
Applicant’s argument: As such, it is abundantly clear that HSE does not teach hierarchical analysis as required by Applicant's Claim 1. Nonetheless, solely to expedite prosecution, Applicant is amending Claim 1 to make the foregoing distinction abundantly clear. Specifically, claim 1 as currently amended requires "the processing comprising: (i) evaluating existence of multiple risk types of the posture in a hierarchical order of the multiple risk types and (ii) upon determining a given risk type of the multiple risk types exists, stopping the evaluating; and responsive to stopping the evaluating, outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk." Applicant submits that
Kim and HSE, alone or in combination, are silent as to the foregoing currently amended Claim 1 elements. Wang does not teach the previous Claim 3 functionality and, likewise, does not teach or suggest the foregoing currently amended Claim 1 method.
Examiner’s response: The examiner disagrees that the newly amended claim does not explicitly teach by the combined model of Kim- HSE-Wang. Since the amendment add a new limitation which recites a “computer simulation and” “the generating utilizes a digital human model (DHM) representing the operator in the computer-implemented simulation;” the scope of the claim is changed and a new reference of Li and Colombini are used to teach the newly amended claims. Li teaches a hierarchical decision tree to analyses the workers posture and to analyses risk type. Li explicitly teaches Erro4ALL and DHM. Li doesn’t explicitly teach stopping evaluation upon determining of a given risk type of the multiple risk type While Colombini teaches a quick assessment for evaluating risk type and if there is any awkward working posture of the head/ trunk, or upper and lower limbs it goes to step 2 for quick assessment, this is implemented as stopping evaluation when a risk type is determined from multiple risk type. See 35 USC 103 rejection below.
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 falls within the statutory category of process and machine respectively, while claim 20 also fall under a statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A: prong One: Yes, claims 1-20 recites abstract idea which falls under a
mental process since a human mind can assess and reduce the ergonomic risk by observing the workers posture and can analyses by using a hierarchical decision tree as it is shown on drawing Fig. 4-7. Abstract ideas are bolded as shown below.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20:
receiving process planning data for an operator performing a task; (insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
using the received process planning data, generating a posture, in a , 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.)
wherein the generating utilizes a digital human model (DHM) representing the operator in the computer-implemented simulation - insignificant extra-solution activity – WURC, MPEP 2106.05(d)
processing the generated posture using a hierarchical decision tree to determine ergonomic risk of the posture in the certain real-world environment, the processing comprising: (i) evaluating existence of multiple risk types of the posture in a hierarchical order of the multiple risk types and (ii) upon determining a given risk type of the multiple risk types exists, stopping the evaluating: and (under its broadest interpretation this limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. An ordinary skill in art can make a hierarchical decision tree as shown on the drawing on Fig 4-7, by using a pen and paper in order to make judgments on posture to determine the type of ergonomic risk by evaluating the criteria until a risk type is exist).
responsive to stopping the evaluating, outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user and the indication of the determined ergonomic risk including a suggestion to lower risk. - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2A: Prong two: No
The above judicial 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 on or use
the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception.
Claims recite gathering data and outputting information 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), and claims also recites data manipulation by
“outputting” - Selecting information, based on types of information and
availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and
display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim limitations which recite data gatherings, outputting and manipulation
are listed below.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20:
receiving process planning data for an operator performing a task; (insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
wherein the generating utilizes a digital human model (DHM) representing the operator in the computer-implemented simulation - insignificant extra-solution activity – WURC, MPEP 2106.05(d)
responsive to stopping the evaluation, outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user and the indication of the determined ergonomic risk including a suggestion to lower risk. - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 28: 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 component as a
tool to perform abstract ideas. Merly using a computer for simulation and applying abstract ideas into a system without making improvement to the functionality of a computer is not significantly more.
The claim recites insignificant extra activity “receiving…” and “outputting….” Which is data gathering and it also recites an additional element of “wherein the generating utilizes a digital human model (DHM) representing the operator in the computer-implemented simulation”, as it is cited above using a computer as a tool is not significantly more abstract idea and according to specification [0006]-[0007], digital human model is a well know so this additional element is also not significantly more since it is WURC MPEP 2106.05(d). Generally there is no improvement on the additional element is recited and Improvement should be done on additional elements which are not differentiated as abstract idea and the applicant has not pointed out or recite additional element on the claim that integrated the abstract idea into practical application or improvement on the additional elements MPEP 2106.05(a): "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements... " Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, "an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology."
Generally, the independent claims recite abstract ideas based on the above analysis and let’s see if there are any significant more claim limitations exist for
the dependent claims, since the dependent claims inherit abstract ideas from
independent claim.
Regarding claim 2:
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 so it is insignificant extra solution activity, so the additional element is not significantly more
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk further includes an indication of the given risk type - it further defines abstract idea, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claims 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 - it further defines abstract idea, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
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 – it further defines abstract idea, so there is no additional element which is significantly more
Determine the object weight risk type exists if the weight of the object exceeds the threshold - it further defines abstract idea, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claims 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; it further defines abstract idea, so there is no additional element which is significantly more
comparing the determined at least one of back joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load to a threshold; and- it further defines abstract idea, so there is no additional element which is significantly more
determining the joint load risk type exists if the determined at least one of back
joint load, shoulder joint load, and elbow joint load exceed the threshold - it further defines abstract idea, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claims 7and 17:
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 – it further defines abstract idea (comparing- is a mental process), so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
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 - it further defines abstract idea, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claims 8 and 18:
wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk further includes at least one of: a risk type; a risk location; and a risk level - under its broadest interpretation this claim limitation narrows the abstract idea of claim 1. As it was explained in claim 1, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
determining the suggestion by searching a mapping between risk types, risk locations, and suggestions, wherein the determined suggestion is mapped to the given risk type and a given risk location of the determined ergonomic risk – it further narrows the abstract idea, 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, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 10:
implementing the suggestion in the certain real-world environment - Field of Use and Technological Environment, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 11:
receiving a measurement from a sensor in the certain real-world environment in which the task is performed - insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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 fail 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 – 4, 8, 11 -14, 18 and 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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015).
As of claim 1 Kim teaches A computer-implemented method of assessing and reducing ergonomic risk, the method comprising, by a processor: (Page iii, The objective of this research is to help reduce the risks of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders of construction workers by accurately identifying
awkward postures and repetitive work…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; 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, in a computer implemented simulation, 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 workers’ 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 wherein the generating utilizes a digital human model (DHM) representing the operator in the computer-implemented simulation;
processing the generated posture using a hierarchical decision tree to determine
ergonomic risk of the posture in the certain real-world environment, the processing
comprising: (i) evaluating existence of multiple risk types of the posture in a hierarchical
order of the multiple risk types and (ii) upon determining a given risk type of the multiple
risk types exists, stopping the evaluating: and responsive to stopping the evaluating, outputting an indication of the determined ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user and the indication of the determined ergonomic risk including a suggestion to lower risk.
While Li teaches wherein the generating utilizes a digital human model (DHM) representing the operator in the computer-implemented simulation;( abstract , The emergence of virtual reality technology has opened up a new field of application, namely virtual ergonomics, which allows us to perform ergonomic assessments proactively in a virtual environment by means of digital manikin… Page 6, Musculoskeletal analysis is also performed. Various DHM software programs are used to conduct analyses).
processing the generated posture using a hierarchical decision tree to determine
ergonomic risk of the posture in the certain real-world environment, (page 21-22, section 2.2.5 “Suggestion Generation Tool: Decision Tree”, A decision tree has already been developed using data mining techniques and it has been tested using a set of 23 postures from the oven assembly line in a research project previous (DJIRE, 2016). This tool allows for an assessment of a work posture in providing suggestions in text format to improve the layout of the workstation in order to guide designers in reducing the level of risk of MSDs associated with their design
PNG
media_image1.png
612
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
the processing comprising: (i) evaluating existence of multiple risk types of the posture in a hierarchical order of the multiple risk types and (page 21-22, section 2.2.5 “Suggestion Generation Tool: Decision Tree”, At each node of the decision tree, different conditions represent a series of possible choices within ranges of values (e.g., force exerted by the operator, angle of the joint, vertical or horizontal distance of the hands from the pelvis) are based on the criteria for different methods of assessing work postures. For example, at the level of the node that assesses arm elevation, three ranges of joint amplitude described by limits fixed values were chosen (less than 45 degrees, between 45 and 90 degrees, greater than 90 degrees …In the current version of the tree, the following four attributes have been identified as priorities: the load, trunk position (rotation, lateral tilt and flexion), neck flexion and elevation of the arm). Examiner note: As it is shown on Figure 2.6, risk types are considers as risk on Trunk because of trunk twist, flexion and neck risk because of neck flexion and so on are analyzed using hierarchical decision tree.
responsive to stopping the evaluating, outputting an indication of the determined
ergonomic risk, said outputting being to at least a user and the indication of the determined ergonomic risk including a suggestion to lower risk (page 51 -51, Section 4.1.5 “Preliminary Data Processing”, The results of the test used to validate the method for calculating the risk index and the Decision tree performance data was generated in TXT format using the new model of DELMIA. Figure 4.8 shows an example of part of the test result.
PNG
media_image2.png
677
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Generation of suggestions by the decision tree. It shows the path taken in the tree during posture assessment, the parameters of posture assessed (e.g., angle of the joint, vertical or horizontal distance of the hands from the pelvis, etc.) and the Suggestions in text format to improve the layout of the workstation). Examiner note; As shown on figure 4.8, the risk analysis is displayed to the user, and the output includes most stressed joint which is implemented as a risk type.
Li is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches posture analysis for ergonomic risk. therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Li’s teaching of a hierarchical decision tree for posture analysis into Kim model to analyses the posture for ergonomic risk type determination using hierarchical decision tree using planning data.
The motivation would have been to improve its virtual environment, which can offer industrial designers better support in their decision-making about ergonomic issues by providing suggestions in text format to improve the layout of the workstation
in order to guide designers in reducing the level of risk of MSDs associated with their design (LI, abstract and page 22)
The modified model of Kim-Li does not explicitly teach (ii) upon determining a given risk type of the multiple risk types exists, stopping the evaluating.
While Colombini teaches (ii) upon determining a given risk type of the multiple risk types exists, stopping the evaluating: and (Section 1.2 1.2 “The quick assessment”, The quick assessment consists in rapidly checking for potential risk conditions (in this case for WMSDs), by asking simple qualitative and quantitative questions. The quick assessment is essentially designed to identify three possible conditions or outcomes: - acceptable (green): no further actions are required; - critical (purple): the work or process must be immediately redesigned; -a more detailed analysis is required: a proper risk assessment needs to be carried out using specific analytical tools (as suggested by the series standards).
PNG
media_image3.png
777
937
media_image3.png
Greyscale
). Examiner note: As is shown on table 1, based on the quick assessment if there is any awkward working posture of the head/ trunk, or upper and lower limbs it goes to step 2 for quick assessment, so this is implemented as stopping evaluation when a risk type is found from multiple risk type.
Colombini is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches identification and preliminary assessment of potential risks. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to integrate Colombini’s teaching of quick assessment consists in rapidly checking for potential risk conditions into the modified model to stop evaluation when a risk type is determined in the modified model using a hierarchical decision tree.
The motivation would have been to quickly analyses especially for critical conditions since it is worth remembering that when conditions are found to be acceptable or critical, respectively, it is not always necessary to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the exposure level (level 3), especially in the case of critical conditions. Efforts should be directed towards reducing the detected risk rather than on often complex and sometimes useless investigations into the situation (Colombini, section 1.2, “The quick assessment).
Claim 12 and 20 are 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, and a MATLAB program is used which is a computer program, Additional claim 20 also recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions (Kim, Section 2.2 “memory based posture planning model”, For a given figure in the model, the task space is partitioned into many square-like regions called „cells‟ – each cell is linked to a memory that stores various alternative postures for reaching the cell)
Therefore claim 12 and 20 are also rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As of claim 2, the combined model of Kim-Li-Colombini 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 3, the combined model of Kim-Li-Colombini teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Li also teaches wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk further includes an indication of the given risk type (page 63,
PNG
media_image4.png
848
1127
media_image4.png
Greyscale
). As it is shown on Fig. 4.15, risk index of the most used joint is computed so this is implemented as an indication of a risk type.
Claim 13 is also in the same scope as claim 3 and all the limitations of claim 12 are also in the same scope with claim 1 with additional elements which are already taught by Kim as listed above on claim 1, therefore claim 13 is also rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
As of claim 4, The modified model of Kim- LI – Colombini teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Li also teaches wherein the hierarchical order of the multiple risk types, in order from first evaluated to last evaluated includes: object weight risk type, (page 64, Figure 4.16: Example of variation in the most stressed joint when the applied weight is 64 increased: (a) application of a weight of 0 kg; (b) application of a weight of 5 kg).
hand position risk type (page 22, Figure 2.6 :example of decision tree” , arm elevation) joint load risk type, and body joint angle risk type (page 22, At each node of the decision tree, different conditions represent a series of possible choices within ranges of values (e.g., force exerted by the operator, angle of the joint, vertical or horizontal distance of the hands from the pelvis).
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 8, the modified model of Kim-Li-Colombini teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Li also teaches wherein the indication of the determined ergonomic risk further includes at least one of: a risk type; a risk location; and a risk level: (page 63:
PNG
media_image4.png
848
1127
media_image4.png
Greyscale
). As it is shown on Fig. 4.15, a risk level and most stressed joint is recited.
Claim 18 is also in the same scope as claim 8, so Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as of claim 8.
As of claim 11, the combined model of Kim- Li - Colombini 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 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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015), 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 modified model of Kim-Li-Colombini teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but the modified model does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4.
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_image5.png
584
1061
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
373
804
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
Examiner note: 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 claimed invention, since they focus on ergonomic analysis. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date 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 determines 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 onehanded 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 6 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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015), further in the Genaidy, A M., A A AI-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 6, the modified model of Kim-Li-Colombini teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but the modified model does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
While Genaidy 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_image7.png
447
807
media_image7.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 claim invention, since it focused on ergonomic analysis. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date 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 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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015), further in the 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 modified model of Kim-Li-Colombini teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but the modified model does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7.
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
448
611
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 claimed invention since they focused on ergonomic risk assessment. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date 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, IV “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 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 Li, Xuewei. ERGO4ALL: Validation d'un algorithme d'analyse des postures et applications de force. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada), 2019, further in the view of Colombini, Daniela, and Enrico Occhipinti. "Initial identification and preliminary assessment (pre-mapping) of potential risks." EPM IES Guideline (2015), further in the Aqlan; Faisal (US 20160148132).
As of claim 9, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitation of claim 9.
While Aqlan teaches determining the suggestion by searching a mapping between risk types, risk locations, and suggestions, wherein the determined suggestion is mapped to the 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 claimed invention, since they focused on ergonomic risk assessment. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date 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 Kim -Li-Colombini teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10.
While Aqlan 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
314
457
media_image9.png
Greyscale
).
Aqlan is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, since they focused on ergonomic risk assessment. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date 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 and using the suggestion in a real-world environment.
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 A 1, 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights