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
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claims 1, 3, and 5, they recite the limitation “a model time requited for each action” which appears to be a typographical error for “a model time required for each action” as claim 2 recites “a model time required for each element action”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC section 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.
3. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 1) Claim 1-2 is directed methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; and, claim 3-4 is directed to an apparatus and falls within the statutory category of machines. Claims 5-6 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1, 3 and 5 recite:
calculating, by simulation, a model time required for each action (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) of object handling work for an object handled in a distribution (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use);
determining a start time and an end time of the each action based on an analysis center (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) of camera image data obtained in the distribution center (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and field of use);
calculating an actual time required for the each action from a time difference between the start time and the end time of the each action (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
calculating a difference between the actual time required and the model time required for the each action (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “A system comprising: at least one processor; and a program memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the program memory storing a plurality of instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to execute” (Claim 3) and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program comprising a plurality of instructions configured to cause at least one processor to execute” (Claim 5) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further the additional element of “object handling work for an object handled in a distribution is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Further Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “camera image data obtained in the distribution center” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and field of use).
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 - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system comprising: at least one processor; and a program memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the program memory storing a plurality of instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to execute” (Claim 3) and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program comprising a plurality of instructions configured to cause at least one processor to execute” (Claim 5) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further the additional element of “object handling work for an object handled in a distribution is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP section2106.05(h)).
Further Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93): “camera image data obtained in the distribution center” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and field of use).
Further dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 recite:
(Claim 2, 4, and 6) “calculating, by simulation, a model time required for each element action when the each action is decomposed into one or more element actions (a mathematical concept and a mental process);
determining a start time and an end time of the each element action based on an analysis of the camera image data (a mathematical concept and a mental process);
calculating an actual time required for the each element action from a time difference between the start time and the end time of the each element action (a mathematical concept and a mental process); and
calculating a difference between the actual time required and the model time required for the each element action (a mathematical concept and a mental process)”.
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC section 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2021/0225029 A1) in view of Ganbold (“A Simulation-Based Optimization Method for Warehouse Worker Assignment”), further in view of Khatravath (US 2018/0137452 A1).
As per Claim 1, Sato teaches a method/system/ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Fig. 1; [0043]-[0044] “work analyzing system), comprising:
determining a start time and an end time of the each action based on an analysis of camera image data ([0045] “The camera 1 shoots working activities of the worker at the worker's place”; [0057] “the server 3 performs a joint position estimation to estimate joint positions (i.e. positions of joints) of the worker in each frame of the video recordings of working activities of the worker”; [0054] “the work start time is the time at which the trigger posture is detected when the work is not in progress”: the video data captured by the camera (i.e., the “camera image data” as claimed) is analyzed by estimating the worker's joint positions in each frame and detecting the trigger posture that marks the start and the end of the worker's working activity (i.e., the “action” as claimed)); and
calculating an actual time required for the each action from a time difference between the start time and the end time of the each action ([0054] “acquires a working time as a time period from a work start time to a work end time”: the working time measured as the time period from the start time to the end time is the “actual time required” as claimed); and
calculating a difference between the actual time required and the model time required for the each action ([0120] “The evaluator 65 acquires a working time of a skilled worker as a standard time, compares a working time of a target worker with the standard time”; [0121] “when the difference between the working time and the standard time is less than the first threshold value”: a difference is computed between the measured working time (i.e., the “actual time required” as claimed) and the standard time acquired for the work (i.e., the “model time required” as claimed); Examiner's Note - the recited “model time required” is the reference time against which the actual time required is compared and Sato's standard time is that reference time, and its calculation by simulation is supplied by Ganbold as set out below).
In particular, Sato teaches measuring, from video recordings of working activities of a worker captured by a camera, a working time of the worker as the time period between a detected work start time and a detected work end time, and comparing the measured working time with a standard time to evaluate the working efficiency of the worker.
However, Sato fails to teach explicitly calculating, by simulation, a model time requited for each action of object handling work for an object handled in a distribution center; and camera image data obtained in the distribution center.
Ganbold teaches calculating, by simulation, a model time requited for each action of object handling work for an object handled in a distribution center (Ganbold: section 5.2, pg. 8-9 “we assumed the processing time of each activity follows a gamma distribution”; section “
PNG
media_image1.png
303
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”: each activity of the warehouse process is assigned a gamma distributed processing time whose mean and standard deviation come from the time-motion study, so that each run of the discrete-event simulation model generates, for every activity a pallet passes through, a modelled processing time (i.e., a “model time” for “each action” calculated “by simulation” as claimed) in Ganbold's warehouse (i.e., the “distribution center” as claimed). In particular, Ganbold teaches building a simulation model of warehouse operations in which pallets flow through inbound and outbound handling activities and assigning, in the simulation, a gamma-distributed processing time to each of those activities from parameters measured in the warehouse.
Sato and Ganbold are analogous art because they are both related to management of work performed by workers based on measured work times.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Ganbold into Sato's invention for the purpose of analyzing a work efficiency status of a worker based on video recordings of working activities to provide improved throughput and service level of the warehouse while keeping the number of workers constant (Ganbold: pg. 1).
However, Sato as modified by Ganbold fails to teach explicitly camera image data obtained in the distribution center.
On the other hand, Khatravath teaches camera image data obtained in the distribution center (Khatravath: [0018] “cameras 110 installed within the warehouse”; [0020] “a camera feed processing engine 204 analyzes the camera feeds captured using cameras 110 to determine current activity status of each of the plurality of employees”: camera feeds captured by cameras installed within a warehouse constitute camera image data obtained in the warehouse (i.e., the “distribution center” as claimed)). In particular, Khatravath teaches a warehouse management device that analyzes camera feeds captured by a plurality of cameras installed within the warehouse to determine the current activity status of each of the plurality of employees within the warehouse.
Sato, Ganbold, and Khatravath are analogous art because they are all related to monitoring and management of work performed by workers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Khatravath into Sato as modified by Ganbold's invention for the purpose of analyzing a work efficiency status of a worker based on video recordings of working activities to provide improved throughput and service level of the warehouse while keeping the number of workers constant (Ganbold: pg. 1) and to provide warehouse operations made more efficient through proper monitoring of the warehouse using analysis performed on live camera feeds captured by cameras installed within the warehouse (Khatravath: [0083]).
As per Claim 2, 4 and 6, Sato teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a start time and an end time of the each element action based on an analysis of the camera image data ([0055] “the worker may take a trigger posture at the time of start or end of a step of work”; [0060] “presetting respective different trigger postures for start and end of a step of work enables identification of respective times of start and end of the step of work”: a step of work (i.e., an “element action” as claimed) has its start time and its end time identified from the trigger postures preset for the start and the end of the step);
calculating an actual time required for the each element action from a time difference between the start time and the end time of the each element action ([0124] “the working time is a working time for the current step which the worker in the video is currently working on”: the working time is measured per step of work (i.e., per “element action” as claimed)); and
calculating a difference between the actual time required and the model time required for the each element action ([0124] “the standard time is a standard time for the current step”; [0121]: the difference between the working time for the current step of work and the standard time for that step is evaluated (i.e., the “difference between the actual time required and the model time required for the each element action” as claimed), the standard time being the reference time whose calculation by simulation is supplied by Ganbold as set out above).
However, Sato fails to teach explicitly calculating, by simulation, a model time required for each element action when the each action is decomposed into one or more element actions.
Ganbold teaches calculating, by simulation, a model time required for each element action when the each action is decomposed into one or more element actions (Ganbold: section 5.2, pg. 8-9 “Any process system consists of a sequence of steps, i.e., activities. Entities move through the activities. Similarly, in the simulation modeling, the real life situation can be represented using an entity flow diagram (EFD), a logical flow diagram of entities between the activities.”: each activity a pallet flows through is a constituent step of the inbound or outbound operation, that step (i.e., an “element action” as claimed) being assigned by the simulation model a gamma distributed processing time (i.e., the “model time required for each element action” as claimed)).
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nagayoshi (US 11651317 B2) teaches video-based segmentation of elemental work operations and comparison of per-element working times against predetermined times.
Ozawa (US 11170244 B2) teaches video-based detection and segmentation of fundamental work operations performed by a worker during repetitive manual work.
Sakaguchi (US 10401844 B2) teaches simulation of a system model performing pick-and-place operations to evaluate a tact time of the system.
Parker (US 2016/0117635 A1) teaches selective video monitoring of agents handling items in a materials handling facility.
Sugiyama (US 9953376 B2) teaches capturing images of a worker's work area with a wearable device and transmitting the images or information derived from them to a management server.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights