DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page , line 10, the phrase, “takt time” is repeated twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the generic placeholders, “event detection unit”, “a network generation unit”, “adjustment unit”, “conversion unit” and “output unit” followed by functional limitations without reciting structure for the generic placeholders to perform the functional limitations. Examiner looked into page 6 of the specification, specifically lines 1-16 where it states the work status monitoring system is referred to as work status monitoring apparatus which is integrally formed with the terminal 13 which is a personal computer or a mobile terminal such as smartphone. Examiner interpreted, a personal computer or smartphone will have processors and other combination of hardware and software to perform the recited functions of the above recited generic placeholders.
Claim 2 recites the generic placeholder, “ conversion unit” followed by functional limitations without reciting structure for the generic placeholders to perform the functional limitations. Examiner looked into page 6 of the specification, specifically lines 1-16 where it states the work status monitoring system is referred to as work status monitoring apparatus which is integrally formed with the terminal 13 which is a personal computer or a mobile terminal such as smartphone. Examiner interpreted, a personal computer or smartphone will have processors and other combination of hardware and software to perform the recited functions of the above recited generic placeholders.
Claims 3,4 and 5 recite the generic placeholder, “output unit” followed by functional limitations without reciting structure for the generic placeholders to perform the functional limitations. Examiner looked into page 6 of the specification, specifically lines 1-16 where it states the work status monitoring system is referred to as work status monitoring apparatus which is integrally formed with the terminal 13 which is a personal computer or a mobile terminal such as smartphone. Examiner interpreted, a personal computer or smartphone will have processors and other combination of hardware and software to perform the recited functions of the above recited generic placeholders.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the generic placeholder, “adjustment unit” followed by functional limitations without reciting structure for the generic placeholders to perform the functional limitations. Examiner looked into page 6 of the specification, specifically lines 1-16 where it states the work status monitoring system is referred to as work status monitoring apparatus which is integrally formed with the terminal 13 which is a personal computer or a mobile terminal such as smartphone. Examiner interpreted, a personal computer or smartphone will have processors and other combination of hardware and software to perform the recited functions of the above recited generic placeholders.
Claim 8 recite the generic placeholder, “the event detection unit” followed by functional limitations without reciting structure for the generic placeholders to perform the functional limitations. Examiner looked into page 6 of the specification, specifically lines 1-16 where it states the work status monitoring system is referred to as work status monitoring apparatus which is integrally formed with the terminal 13 which is a personal computer or a mobile terminal such as smartphone. Examiner interpreted, a personal computer or smartphone will have processors and other combination of hardware and software to perform the recited functions of the above recited generic placeholders.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract ideas without reciting significantly more.
Step 1 for claim 1: The claim recites a working status monitoring system which is a process and falls into one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A Prong One for claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation, a network generation unit configured to generate an event network composed of a plurality of nodes indicating the plurality of events detected by the event detection unit and a plurality of edges indicating an order of generation of the plurality of nodes. As evident from the background of the limitation, the event network is a diagram having plurality of nodes such as headers identifying the steps or events in a work area and each of the nodes/headers connected to another nodes/header sequentially by arrows (edges) to show the order of occurrence of each node in relation to another. Based on the gathered event data, by performing observation and evaluation on the gathered event data, some of ordinary skill in the art can draw an event network with the aid of pen and paper. In other words, generation of event network is simple enough that it can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper and thus falls into the mental concept groupings of abstract ideas. Note the use of physical aid such as pen and paper to generate a diagram of the event network does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Claim 1 also recites, an adjustment unit configured to adjust a resolution of the event network generated by the network generation unit to a specified resolution. Once the event network is generated, if determined a more detailed information for one of the nodes is necessary or if determined one node is not needed due to certain conditions, the event network diagram can be further drawn to indicate more details about one or more nodes based on the gathered event data or one or more node may be erased from the event network diagram that is resolution of the event network is adjusted to a specified resolution based on further evaluation and judgement of the generated event network diagram. That is the step is simple enough to be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper and thus falls into the mental concept group of abstract ideas. Examiner notes that the limitations recite a network generation unit and adjustment unit but no specific structure for the units are recited. Therefore these units are treated as generic placeholders in a claim and do not count as additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1: Claim 1 recites the additional element, an event detection unit configured to detect a plurality of events that have occurred in a work area. Data related to plurality of events occurred in work area are gathered. This is a mere data gathering step that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (event data is used to generate the event network drawing) (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.The recitation of event detection unit without reciting any specific structure is considered as generic placeholder and does not count as additional element. Thus this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 also recite the additional element limitation, a conversion unit configured to convert the event network of which the resolution has been adjusted by the adjustment unit into information indicating a relationship of an order of occurrences of a plurality of events. That is based on generated event network diagram and a specified resolution to further shape the diagram, change the diagram to match the specified resolution that is either add to remove nodes or view specific details of a node. This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is necessary to perform the recited judicial exception of generating and further adjusting the event network diagram. The recitation of a conversion unit without any specific structure is considered as generic placeholder in claimed limitation and does not count as additional element. Claim 1 also recites the additional element limitation, an output unit configured to output a result of the conversion by the conversion unit. That is outputting the generated event diagram to be viewed. This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is necessary for outputting of the judicial exception (generated event network diagram followed by adjustment of the network diagram) to be viewed. As explained above, recitation of unit without reciting specific structure is considered as generic placeholder and not counted as additional element. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B for claim 1: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional element of event detection unit detecting plurality of events data. This limitation recites mere data gathering step and even upon reconsideration is still considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element limitation reciting to convert the adjusted event network into a particular form of information while indicating the relationship of an order of occurrences of plurality of events explained previously is extra-solution activity and even upon reconsideration is still considered insignificant. Claim 1 also recites the additional element limitation of outputting the generated and adjusted event network diagram. The act of outputting is a form of action that is necessary to display the judicial exception (generated and adjusted event network diagram) and even upon reconsideration is still considered insignificant extra solution activity. None of the additional elements recite how the generated event network will be used to control an element or make a decision to control one or more elements, (implemented to practical). No solution to a problem is accomplished by the above recited limitations; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)-“The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
Thus, when taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claim 2 recites, the work status monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein
the conversion unit converts the event network of which the resolution is adjusted by the adjustment unit into a Design Structure Matrix (DSM), the DSM being the information indicating a relationship of an order of occurrences of the plurality of events, and the output unit outputs information about the DSM. This claim adds additional details to the abstract idea such as DSM without reciting any additional element that will amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites, the work status monitoring system according to claim 2, wherein the output unit outputs, as the information about the DSM, both the DSM generated
based on the plurality of events detected by the event detection unit and a DSM of
a preset standard. This claim adds additional details to the abstract idea such as DSM without reciting any additional element that will amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites, the work status monitoring system according to claim 2, wherein the output unit outputs, as the information about the DSM, a status of a change in the
DSM through a repetition of items of work. This claim adds additional details to the abstract idea such as change of information without reciting any additional element that will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites, the work status monitoring system according to claim 2, wherein the output unit displays the information about the DSM on a monitor. The claim recites a monitor via which the DSM is displayed. This limitation can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a monitor.
Claim 6 recites, the work status monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit combines nodes of events related within a specified degree of
relation among the plurality of nodes into one node. This claim recites additional details to the abstract ideas such as how to further adjust the generated event network diagram and does not recite any additional element that will amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites, the work status monitoring system according to claim 6, wherein the adjustment unit determines whether or not a first event represented by a first
node, the first node being any one of the plurality of nodes, and a second event represented by a second node, the second node being another one of the plurality
of nodes, are related within the specified degree of relation based on at least one
of an object involved in an occurrence of each of the first and the second events,
a time when each of the first and the second events has occurred, and a place
where each of the first and the second events has occurred. This claim recites additional details to the abstract ideas and does not recite any additional element that will amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites, the work status monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the event detection unit detects the plurality of events that have occurred in the work
area by using at least one of a distance measurement sensor and a camera. This limitation can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a camera and distance measurement sensor.
Claim 9 recites a work status monitoring method implementing the functional steps of the a work status monitoring system and is not eligible for the reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing work status monitoring program which implements the functional steps of the a work status monitoring system and is not eligible for the reasons discussed above in claim 1. The recitation of non-transitory computer readable medium is recited at high level of generality and inclusion of generic computer component in claim 10 is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
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, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazumi et al. (US 20220215327 A1) in view of Haligowski et al. (US 20170364843 A1).
For claim 1, Kitazumi et al. teaches, a work status monitoring system (work analysis device implementing functional steps of work analysis system, [0009]) comprising:
an event detection unit (a detector unit and a determination unit, [0009]) configured to detect a plurality of events that have occurred in a work area (image data of the work area is received by the reception unit which is parsed by the detector unit and the determination unit to determine the processes performed by the worker. Each process is an event, [0009], [0011] and [0017]);
an output unit (output unit 17, [0041]) configured to output a result of the conversion by the conversion unit (the output unit displays the generated time chart (a sequence of events determined based on the parsed image data) and other results to the user, [0049] and [0085]).
Kitazumi et al. does not teach the details of a network generation unit configured to generate an event network composed of a plurality of nodes indicating the plurality of events detected by the event detection unit and a plurality of edges indicating an order of generation of the plurality of nodes; an adjustment unit configured to adjust a resolution of the event network generated by the network generation unit to a specified resolution; a conversion unit configured to convert the event network of which the
resolution has been adjusted by the adjustment unit into information indicating a
relationship of an order of occurrences of a plurality of events. However Kitazumi et al. explicitly teaches to generate a time chart showing the relationship between the work events taking place in an order as taught in [0011]. But does not teach to create an event network composed of plurality of nodes and edges.
Haligowski et al. teaches, a network generation unit configured to generate an event network composed of a plurality of nodes indicating the plurality of events detected by the event detection unit and a plurality of edges indicating an order of generation of the plurality of nodes (a workflow is generated showing working steps 1-11 (nodes) arranged in a sequential order as the steps were performed indicated by arrows (edges). The workflow generated is the event network with nodes and edges, [0047], [0050] and [0051] and annotated FIG.4);
an adjustment unit configured to adjust a resolution of the event network
generated by the network generation unit to a specified resolution (the GUI 4001 shows an overview of the workflow showing the nodes and the edges. The user can select each of the steps/nodes of the workflow to view the details about each selected node that is the event network (generated workflow) resolution adjusted to a specified resolution (detail for each step can be displayed if selected, [0050], [0051] and annotated FIG.4);
a conversion unit configured to convert the event network of which the
resolution has been adjusted by the adjustment unit into information indicating a
relationship of an order of occurrences of a plurality of events (once the user selects a specific step of the workflow, the detail of that step is viewed to the user that is event resolution is adjusted to the specified resolution while still showing the relationship of an order of occurrences between the plurality of steps or events in the generated workflow, [0050], [0051] and annotated FIG.4).
Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is automatically generating workflow based on received process data.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the work status monitoring system detecting plurality of events and outputting the results of the plurality of events in an ordered manner as taught by Kitazumi et al. by applying the known technique of generating a event network composing plurality of nodes and edges and adjusting the resolution of the event network to a specified resolution and the converting the event network to the specified resolution as taught by Haligowski et al. as an improvement to the work status monitoring system to yield predictable results for identifying faults and failures in workflows, processes, steps and or activities for subsequent remediation as taught by Haligowski et al. in [0016].
Kitazumi et al. teach:
[0011] The above work analysis device detects, from a captured image of the work area, a person who is a worker, and can more accurately capture which process the worker is performing on the basis of the position and orientation of the worker. The work analysis device also generates a time chart by measuring the work time of each process, and can more accurately capture the processes in the work steps of the worker.
[0017] A second aspect of the present invention provides a work analysis method for analyzing a work step that includes a plurality of processes, the work analysis method characterized by including: a reception step for receiving a captured image of a work area; a detector step for parsing the captured image and detecting the position and orientation of a worker working in the work area; a determination step for determining the process being performed by the worker on the basis of the position and orientation of the worker; and a generation step for measuring a work time for each of the processes being performed and generating a time chart representing the processes in the work step carried out by the worker2.
[0085] In step S26 of FIG. 3, the output unit 17 presents the time chart generated in step S24 and the result of the analysis in step S25 on a display or the like provided to the work analysis device 1. The output unit 17 may be configured to switch between presenting the time chart and presenting the analysis result in accordance with an instruction from the user. The output unit 17 may also be configured to switch the display format of the time chart (e.g., display formats such as a table, a graph, etc.) in accordance with an instruction from the user.
Haligowski et al. teach:
[0047] Aspects of the workflow visualization simply and clearly convey to a user a structure of the workflow and a result of the operation. For example, a graphic 302 indicates that the operation of Workflow 1 was successful. Portion 304 of the GUI 300 illustrates an execution time of the workflow, as well as when the workflow was started and ended. The status of the various Steps 1-11 may be color-coded or designated using different patterns, symbols, characters, etc., for quick recognition.3 For example, the legend 306 (i.e., the section designated as “Workflow Graph”) illustrates the execution status of the workflow steps by designating the steps with various patterns, as illustrated in FIG. 3. For example, a start node 308 is illustrated with a pattern corresponding to the “needs retry” status; a step310 is illustrated with a pattern corresponding to a “success” status; and a step 312 is illustrated with a pattern correspond to the “skipped” status. In some instances, the step 312 may have been skipped by a user, or by the execution of the Steps 5-9 as a parallel path. In some instances, a user may add, remove, customize, or otherwise customize statuses illustrated in the legend 306. In some instances, a code button 314 can be selected in the GUI 300 to view the programming code of one or more steps of the Workflow 1.
[0051] FIG. 4 shows a GUI 400 illustrating a step detail view in a workflow visualization. For example, the GUI 400 illustrates Workflow 1, which corresponds to the Workflow 1 illustrated in FIG. 3. By way of distinction, as FIG. 3 illustrates a workflow details view, FIG. 4 illustrates a step details view corresponding to step 402. For example, a user may select each individual step of the Workflow 1,causing details of the selected step to be presented in area 404. For example, the area 404 presents additional details of the step 402, such as the status of the step execution (e.g., “step_succeeded”), a start time of the step, an end time of the step, an elapsed time of the step, a number of attempts, an activity name associated with the step, and/or a host address associated with the step.4 In some instances, further aspects of the step details can be presented in the GUI 400 by selecting the various tabs “Step Data,” “Exceptions,” “Inputs,” “Outputs,” and “Links.” In some instances, the step detail view of the GUI 400 provides specific information to a user to debug, troubleshoot, and/or understand specific steps of a workflow.
PNG
media_image1.png
902
1303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG.4.
Regarding claim 9, combination of Kitazumi et al and Haligowski et al. teach the claimed work status monitoring system. Therefore together they teach a work status monitoring method implementing the functional steps of the work status monitoring system as discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, combination of Kitazumi et al and Haligowski et al. teach the claimed work status monitoring system. Therefore together they teach a work status monitoring program implementing the functional steps of the work status monitoring system as discussed above in claim 1. Claim 10 has additional limitation which is taught by Haligowski et al., a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a work status monitoring program for causing a computer (computer readable media storing electronic instructions-program executed by one more processors, [0028] and [0029]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazumi et al. (US 20220215327 A1) in view of Haligowski et al. (US 20170364843 A1) and Fay et al. (US 20130332221 A1).
Regarding claim 2 combination of Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. teach the work status monitoring system according to claim 1. In addition, Haligowski et al. teaches, wherein the conversion unit converts the event network of which the resolution is adjusted by the adjustment unit (the GUI 4005 shows an overview of the workflow showing the nodes and the edges. The user can select each of the steps/nodes of the workflow to view the details about each selected node that is the event network (generated workflow) resolution adjusted to a specified resolution (detail for each step can be displayed if selected, [0050], [0051] and annotated Fig.4).
Neither in combination nor individually Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. teach the details of into a Design Structure Matrix (DSM), the DSM being the information indicating a relationship of an order of occurrences of the plurality of events, and
the output unit outputs information about the DSM.
Fay et al. teaches, into a Design Structure Matrix (DSM), the DSM being the information indicating a relationship of an order of occurrences of the plurality of events (“…One or more working steps for generating the respective working result AE are performed in a field of activity T of the process P. The process P can be for example a planning process for planning a project. Furthermore the process P can also be a manufacturing process for manufacturing products. In the first step S1 at least one binary dependency matrix BAM is provided between the fields of activity T of the process P; this can also be referred to as a binary design structure matrix DSM6. Various forms of causal or temporal dependencies of fields of activity T of the respective process P can be represented with the aid of the binary dependency matrix BAM., and the output unit outputs information about the DSM…”, [0054], that is the workflow is converted in a DSM as recited in [0078] in view of [0054]),
the output unit outputs the information about the DSM (in view of Kitazumi et al. the generated result which is the DSM can be presented to the user using an output unit, [0054]).
Kitazumi et al., Haligowski et al. and Fay et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is automatically generating workflow based on received process data.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the work status monitoring system generating event network having adjusted views per specified resolution as taught by combination of Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. by applying the known technique of converting the event network into a DSM as taught by Fay et al. as an improvement to the generated event network displayed to the user to yield predictable results to determine mutual dependencies between the steps in the process and to identify the critical steps of the process (represented by a workflow) as taught by Fay et al. in [0004] and [0005].
Regarding claim 3 combination of Kitazumi et al., Haligowski et al. and Fay et al. teach the details of the work status monitoring system according to claim 2. In addition Kitazumi et al. teaches, wherein the output unit outputs, as the information about the DSM (the output units outputs the time chart (DSM in view of Fay et al.) and the work analysis to the user, [0085]), both the DSM generated based on the plurality of events detected by the event detection unit and a DSM of a preset standard (the output units displays the difference between the generated time chart (generated DSM7 in view of Fay et al.) and the benchmark time chart (DSM of preset standard) [0072], [0032], [0084] and [0085]).
Regarding claim 4 combination of Kitazumi et al., Haligowski et al. and Fay et al. teach the details of the work status monitoring system according to claim 2. In addition Kitazumi et al. teaches, wherein the output unit outputs (output unit 17, [0085]), as the information about the DSM (the output unit outputs the difference between the generated time chart and the benchmark time chart (DSM in view of Fay et al.8), a status of a change in the DSM through a repetition of items of work9 (during the analysis step where the generated time chart is compared with the benchmark time chart, the missed steps or the steps that took longer than benchmark or excess work was performed for a step can be identified thus showing a change in the steps of the workflow (DSM in view of Fay et al.) through repetition of steps (excess work), [0084] and [0085]).
Regarding claim 5 combination of Kitazumi et al., Haligowski et al. and Fay et al. teach the details of the work status monitoring system according to claim 2. In addition Kitazumi et al. teaches, wherein the output unit displays the information about the DSM on a monitor (the output unit displays the generated workflow, time chart and the result of analysis on a display or an external device10 [0049] and [0085]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazumi et al. (US 20220215327 A1) in view of Haligowski et al. (US 20170364843 A1) and Grossman et al. (US 20200349482 A1).
Regarding claim 6 combination of Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. teach the work status monitoring system according to claim 1. In addition Haligowski et al. teaches, wherein the adjustment unit (the GUI 40011 shows an overview of the workflow showing the nodes and the edges).
Neither in combination nor individually, Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. teach the details of combines nodes of events related within a specified degree of relation among the plurality of nodes into one node.
Grossman et al. teaches, combines nodes of events related within a specified degree of relation among the plurality of nodes into one node (each node from a different workflow are merged based into single node when it is determined the nodes are similar within a threshold value, [0045] and [0063], see also [0079]-[0081]).
Kitazumi et al., Haligowski et al. and Grossman et al. are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor that is automatically generating workflow for processes.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nodes of the event network as taught by combination of Kitazumi et al. and Halogowski et al. by applying the know technique of merging nodes of different workflows into one node based on similarity threshold as taught by Grossman et al. as an improvement to the work status monitoring system to yield predictable results of reducing the number of nodes thus improving processing and storage efficiency as taught by Grossman et al. in [0080].
For claim 7 combination of Kitazumi et al., Halogowski et al. and Grossman et al. teach the work status monitoring system according to claim 6. In addition Grossman et al. teaches, wherein the adjustment unit determines whether or not a first event represented by a first node, the first node being any one of the plurality of nodes, and a second event represented by a second node, the second node being another one of the plurality of nodes (each node from a different workflow are merged based into single node when it is determined the nodes are similar within a threshold value, [0045],[0063] and [0079]-[0081]), are related within the specified degree of relation based on at least one of an object involved in an occurrence of each of the first and the second events (the object is the particular task of a process and each worker can perform different ways to perform the same particular task for the and for each worker, workflows with nodes are generated and then nodes from different workflows are combined based on similarity threshold,[0049] and [0063]), a time when each of the first and the second events has occurred (each node of the workflow are timestamped, [0063] and [0079]), and a place where each of the first and the second events has occurred (the current workflows are created for a company having plurality of clients communicating to cloud server. The location for each client should be known by the cloud server that is location of the workflows performed are known, [0012], [0045] and [0063]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazumi et al. (US 20220215327 A1) in view of Haligowski et al. (US 20170364843 A1) and Diekmann et al. (US 20220055393 A1).
Regarding claim 8 combination of Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. teach the work status monitoring system according to claim 1. In addition Kitazumi et al. teaches, wherein the event detection unit (a detector unit and a determination unit, [0009]) detects the plurality of events that have occurred in the work area by using at least a camera (captured images received from the camera are parsed to determine worker steps to create a time chart having plurality of events indicating worker work steps, [0051], [0064] and [0066]).
Neither in combination nor individually Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. teach the details of a distance measurement sensor.
Diekmann et al. teaches, at least one of a distance measurement sensor (plate location measured by distance measurement sensor, [0032]).
Kitazumi et al., Haligowski et al. and Diekmann et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is monitoring the work status for processes.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the work status monitoring system detecting plurality of events using a camera as taught by combination of Kitazumi et al. and Haligowski et al. by applying the known technique of using a distance measurement sensor to determine certain details about the process as taught by Diekmann et al. as an improvement to the work status monitoring system to yield predictable results of determining more details about the events in a process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20210306560 A1) teaches a system for developing workflows where similar nodes in the workflow are clustered to make condensed workflows.
Yoshizawa et al. (US 20140067804 A1) teaches a workflow that is generated based on a numerical value that results from the quantification. Then, the workflow generation server compares the generated workflow and workflow data in a workflow database and performs recommendation of the workflow that has to be newly defined and recommendation of an amendment to the existing workflow, based on the result of the comparison.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, KAMINI SHAH can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 The GUI is combination of hardware and software that has adjustment unit and conversion unit inside it. The GUI reflects the overview of workflow and based on which particular step the user selects, the GUI can provide details for the selected step that is adjusting the resolution of view per user selection and presenting to the user the adjusted resolution view of the selected detailed step.
2 Plurality of events related to worker’s working steps in a process.
3 Event network having steps/nodes 1-11 and edges indicated by arrows.
4 Adjusted resolution view of the workflow showing the details of the workflow step (node) selected by the user.
5 The GUI is combination of hardware and software that has adjustment unit and conversion unit inside it. The GUI reflects the overview of workflow and based on which particular step the user selects, the GUI can provide details for the selected step that is adjusting the resolution of view per user selection and presenting to the user the adjusted resolution view of the selected detailed step.
6 Converting the working steps (workflow) into a design structure matrix.
7 Someone of ordinary skill in the art can substitute the concept of displaying the difference between generated time chart to benchmark time chart to difference between generated DSM and preset standard DSM to obtain predictable results of identifying the difference between the worked on steps of the process versus benchmark steps of the process, MPEP.2143.I.(B).
8 Someone of ordinary skill in the art can substitute the concept of displaying the difference between generated time chart to benchmark time chart to difference between generated DSM and preset standard DSM to obtain predictable results of identifying the difference between the worked on steps of the process versus benchmark steps of the process, MPEP.2143.I.(B).
9 Also annotated FIG.4 of Haligowski et al. teaches for each step, the detailed view shows how many attempts were taken to complete the step that is also repetition of item of works to complete a particular step.
10 Display or external device can be a monitor.
11 The GUI is combination of hardware and software that has adjustment unit and conversion unit inside it. The GUI reflects the overview of workflow and based on which particular step the user selects, the GUI can provide details for the selected step that is adjusting the resolution of view per user selection and presenting to the user the adjusted resolution view of the selected detailed step.