Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 12/04/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-18 filed on 12/04/2025 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claims 1,7, and 13 have been amended without adding a new subject matter.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1-18 have been considered:
-With regard to prior art rejection the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments filed 12/04/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN 115376072), in view of Khan et al.; “Utilizing safety rule correlation for mobile scaffolds monitoring leveraging deep convolution neural networks, Elsevier computer industry, 2021, further in view of Au et al. (US 2013/0282609.), further in view of Sundt construction, “project safety management plan”, July 2021. https://www.sundt.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Project-Safety-Management-Plan_July2021.pdf.
As per claim 1, A computer-implemented method comprising:
“receiving, by a hardware processor, one or more images of a worksite that includes a scaffold;”(Zaho, page 3, paragraph 5, discloses monitoring the use information of each high-altitude protection article in the high altitude work area in the target substation by the arranged high-definition camera. Further page 4, paragraph 3, discloses the high definition camera is arranged to collect image of each high-altitude operation personnel foot in the high altitude work area in the target transformer substation, at the same time, it also collects the scaffold level of each high altitude work personnel.)
“identifying, by the hardware processor operating computer vision processing, a presence of a person on the scaffold; identifying, by the hardware processor operating one or more image analysis algorithms, one or more items of personal protective equipment in the one or more images;”(Zhao, page 3, paragraph 6, discloses safety analysis of protective articles: according to the use information of each high-altitude protection article in the high-altitude operation area in the target substation, respectively calculating and obtaining the safety evaluation coefficient of each glove in the high-altitude operation area of the target substation, each safety helmet evaluation coefficient and each safety belt evaluation coefficient, and respectively processing each high-altitude protection product in the target substation high-altitude operation area. page 4, paragraph 3 discloses the high definition camera is arranged to collect image of each high-altitude operation personnel foot in the high altitude work area in the target transformer substation, at the same time, it also collects the scaffold level of each high altitude work personnel, and is further used for collecting the high altitude work protection belt wearing image corresponding to each high-altitude operation personnel .)
“determining, by the hardware processor operating image analysis processing, a position of the one or more items of personal protective equipment relative to the person in the one or more images;”(Zhao, page 3, paragraph 6, discloses safety analysis of protective articles: according to the use information of each high-altitude protection article in the high-altitude operation area in the target substation, respectively calculating and obtaining the safety evaluation coefficient of each glove in the high-altitude operation area of the target substation, each safety helmet evaluation coefficient and each safety belt evaluation coefficient, and respectively processing each high-altitude protection product in the target substation high-altitude operation area.)
However Zhao does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Khan from similar field of endeavor “identifying, by the hardware processor operating a trained computer vision model, a presence of a person on the scaffold” (Khan, Figure 8, showing trained model for mobile scaffolding and persons and related paragraphs in page 9, section 4.2. further page 5, section 3.2.1 training a CNN classifier of a person on a mobile scaffolding. page 12, Col. 2 section 4.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Khan technique of scaffolds monitoring by deep neural network into Zhao technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Khan technique over construction site security monitoring technique of Zhao. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Khan to Zhao in order to provide automatic risk identification. (Refer to Khan page 2, Col. 1 second paragraph.)
However Zhao as modified by Khan does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Au from similar field of endeavor “and verifying, by the hardware processor using safety standards compliance information, that the person is using the one or more items of personal protective equipment in compliance with personal protective equipment standards based on the position of the one or more identified items of personal protective equipment relative to the person; and in response to verifying non-compliance with the personal protective equipment standards, generating, by the hardware processor, a notification indicating the non-compliance.”(Au, ¶[0006] discloses identifying one or more items of personal protective equipment in the one or more images, determining the positioning of the one or more items of personal protective equipment relative to the person in the one or more images, and verifying compliance with personal protective equipment standards based on the one or more identified items of personal protective equipment and the positioning of the one or more items of personal protective equipment. ¶[0071] discloses the image recognition system 400 may also comprise an output device 470. The output device may be configured to receive data from the image recognition processing system 440 and output the information to one or more people. The output device may comprise any number of device such as an audio device for issuing a warning signal, a lighting device for issuing a visual indicator, an audio/visual device for presenting information to the person, and/or a mobile device associated with the person for receiving communications through the network 460 about the PPE standards. The data displayed on the output device 470 may comprise an indication that the person has complied with the PPE standards, has not complied with the PPE standards, instructions on complying with the PPE standards (e.g., proper positioning information, proper PPE kind/type information, etc.), incident report information, and/or the like. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Au technique of enforcing personnel protective equipment rule in work area by image recognition into Zhao as modified by Khan technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Au technique over construction site security monitoring technique of Zhao as modified by Khan. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Au into Zhao as modified by Khan in order to help prevent worker injury in work areas and promote worker compliance with workplace safety rules. (Refer to Au paragraph [0004-0005].)
However Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Sundt from similar filed of endeavor “a scaffold safety tag on the scaffold and determining, by the hardware processor operating the one or more image analysis algorithms, a type of scaffold safety tag: identifying, by the hardware processor using safety standards compliance information, a set of safety standards corresponding to the determined type of scaffold safety tag, wherein the set of safety standards comprise personal protective equipment” (Sundt, Page 50, scaffold tag shall be utilized, yellow tag, harness shall be worn and lanyard utilized upon entry onto scaffold.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sundt technique of detecting safety rule violation in construction site into Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Sundt technique over construction site security monitoring technique of Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Sundt to Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au in order to protect health and safety of users . (Refer to Sundt page 5. Pargarph1.)
Claims 7 and 13 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 1 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Zhao, Khan, Au and Sundt references, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to these claims.
As per claim 4, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt further discloses “wherein determining, by the hardware processor operating image analysis processing, a position of the one or more items of personal protective equipment relative to the person in the one or more images comprises identifying, from the one or more images, a uniquely identifying characteristic of the one or more items of personal protective equipment, the uniquely identifying characteristic comprising one or more of coded marks, color patterns, bar codes, emitted light frequency, or absorbed light frequency.”(Au ¶[0035] discloses Personal protective equipment (PPE) information 151 may comprise descriptions of various coded marking patterns used to identify the types and/or sub-types of PPE. Any number of coded markings can be used to identify the particular types of PPE. The coded markings may be configured to provide for the identification of the PPE within the image data and/or an extracted portion of the image… further see ¶[0046], ¶[0048])
Claims 10 and 16 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 4 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Zhao, Khan, Au and Sundt references, presented in rejection of claim 4, apply to these claims.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN 115376072), in view of Khan et al.; “Utilizing safety rule correlation for mobile scaffolds monitoring leveraging deep convolution neural networks, Elsevier computer industry, 2021, further in view of Au et al. (US 2013/0282609), further in view of Sundt construction, “project safety management plan”, July 2021, in view of Guillon et al. (EP 4350639).
As per claim 3, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, however Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt is silent on the following which would have been obvious in view of Guillon form similar filed of endeavor “determining, by the hardware processor operating image analysis processing, a height of the scaffold from the one or more images;” “verifying, by the hardware processor using safety standards compliance information, that the person is using the one or more items of personal protective equipment in compliance with personal protective equipment standards based on the height of the scaffold.”(Guillon, ¶[0028] discloses Any safety rule herein may concern safety during work at height, such as a work on a roof. For example, any image herein may corresponds to an installation of solar panels on a roof, i.e. may represent a scene where solar panels are being installed on a roof. For work at height, e.g. on a roof, the safety rules may include one or more of: wear appropriate protective equipment for working at height (e.g. working at a height higher than a given threshold, e.g. higher than 1m, for example higher than or equal to 1.2m, 1.5m, 1.8m or 2m). The protective equipment may include a hard hat and/or a harness. Further ¶[0033] discloses The first contextualization-detection neural network may be configured to determine an overall context of the scene represented by the image, such as a work at height, a work on a roof, and/or a work on a scaffold or ladder. Applying this first network thus provides such an overall context, e.g. in the form of a caption or label. And then the item-detection neural network may be configured for detection of safety equipment items worn by human operators.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Guillon technique of detecting safety rule violation in construction site into Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Guillon technique over construction site security monitoring technique of Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Guillon to Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt in order to improve automatic safety rule violation determination. (Refer to Guillon paragraph [0003-0004].)
Claims 9 and 15 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 3 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Zhao, Khan, Au, Sundt, and Guillon references, presented in rejection of claim 3, apply to these claims.
As per claim 6, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, however Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt is silent on the following which would have been obvious in view of Guillon form similar filed of endeavor “wherein the one or more images comprises one or both of a set of still images and a set of video frames.”(Guillon, ¶[0014] discloses where safety rule violation is detected by applying the neural network to an image or a group of images (e.g. natural, such as photographs or video-camera frames). )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Guillon technique of detecting safety rule violation in construction site into Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Guillon technique over construction site security monitoring technique of Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Guillon to Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt in order to improve automatic safety rule violation determination. (Refer to Guillon paragraph [0003-0004].)
Claims 12 and 18 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 6 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Zhao, Khan, Au, Sundt, and Guillon references, presented in rejection of claim 6, apply to these claims.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN 115376072), in view of Khan et al.; “Utilizing safety rule correlation for mobile scaffolds monitoring leveraging deep convolution neural networks, Elsevier computer industry, 2021, further in view of Au et al. (US 2013/0282609), further in view of Sundt construction, “project safety management plan”, July 2021, in view of Itsumi et al. (US 2024/0331385.)
As per claim 5, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, However Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious sin view of Itsumi from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the hardware processor performs image analysis on the one or more images in response to determining that a person is on the scaffold.”(Itsumi, ¶[0098] discloses The on-site state analysis unit 312 may identify, for example, scaffolds for working at height from the video image of the camera 332, and then determine whether or not the worker working on the scaffolds for working at height is wearing a safety hook. When the on-site state analysis unit 312 has determined that the worker working on the scaffolds for working at height is not wearing a safety hook, the on-site state analysis unit 312 issues an alert of “unsafe behavior”.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Itsumi technique of monitoring work place into Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Itsumi technique over construction site security monitoring technique of Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Itsumi to Zhao as modified by Khan as modified by Au as modified by Sundt in order to accurately monitoring a working space and detecting unsafe behavior. (Refer to Itsumi paragraph [0097].)
Claims 11 and 17 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 5 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Zhao, Khan, Au, Sundt, and Itsumi references, presented in rejection of claim 5, apply to these claims.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671