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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on January 23, 2026. Claims 1, 6-8 and 14-15 have been amended, claims 2 and 4 have been canceled.
Currently claims 1, 3 and 5-18 are pending, and claims 1, 14 and 15 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2025 and 01/23/2026 appear to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 6-8 and 14-15 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1, 3 and 5-18 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that at least independent claims 1, 14 and 15, as presented, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. For example, claim 1 recites “the work process management unit estimates the work process and the work speed executed by the worker of a current work process from the work information and the environment information, changes, according to the work speed of the current work process, the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker, and creates the content for presenting the information of the work of the next process via the mixed reality device.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “estimates the work process and the work speed executed by a worker”, “changes the reproduction position” and “creates the content” are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP ¶ 2106.04(a), (d), which fall into the mental processes grouping. Besides, performing estimation of future work process is a fundamental building block of human ingenuity. As such it is an abstract idea.
Further, using “a mixed reality device” for presenting (displaying) the information of the work of the next process is no more than any generic computer component for displaying the work process information. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Bancorp Services, L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer "employed only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."). Here, even if the claimed solution can improve the control system and the work process speed of a worker, it is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. . . . This is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself.”). In the present case, even if the invention may improve the reproduction speed, which is not an improvement to the network security or the computer itself, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 16, Applicant argues that Hashimoto does not disclose “wherein using a relationship between motion data and behavior of the worker estimated by the machine learning model, and detailed information of the work from the estimated behavior of the worker a reproduction speed and the reproduction position of the content displayed by the mixed reality device are variably determined based on a setting of the user and a progress of the work of the worker,” as set forth in claim 1. However, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended limitations, and therefore, the newly amended limitations will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
In the Remarks on page 18, Applicant argues that Fujita does not disclose "changing, according to the work speed of the current work process, the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker,... wherein using a relationship between motion data and behavior of the worker estimated by the machine learning model, and detailed information of the work from the estimated behavior of the worker a reproduction speed and the reproduction position of the content displayed by the mixed reality device are variably determined based on a setting of the user and a progress of the work of the worker," as set forth in claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Hashimoto discloses moving the reproduction start position of manual content in units of tasks or procedures; moving the reproduction start position of the manual content to an important work item in the work process; and providing time when the reproduction means stops the operation when the worker has to stop the operation during the operation process, and a catch-up reproduction means for reproducing the manual content by adjusting the reproduction speed so that the work is completed within the target time (see pg. 5, ¶ 8-12). Fujita discloses changing the positions if the work plan includes three or more task to be performed (see pg. 15, last ¶). Thus, the combination of Hashimoto and Fujita discloses changing the reproduction position according the work speed of the work process.
In the Remarks on page 19, Applicant argues that Fujita does not disclose "a machine learning model estimating a behavior of the worker," as set forth in claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fujita discloses: The control unit 400 controls the determination unit 200 to detect the unsafe behavior of the worker (see pg. 8, last 2 paragraphs); and the control unit 400 generates sample images of unsafe actions, sample images of unsafe situations, and situation image when an accident or danger occurs. This is realized by the machine learning of the image model unit 220 using. The images used for machine learning by the image model unit 220 include sample images of unsafe behavior, sample images of unsafe situations, images of abnormal conditions such as accidents and dangers, as well as samples of safe behavior (see pg. 9, ¶ 10). Thus, Fujita at least teaches the machine learning is used to realize, analyze and determine that an unsafe behavior of the worker is occurred.
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art, Hashimoto and in view of Fujita teaches the limitation in the form of Applicant claimed.
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, 3 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1, 3, 5-13 and 16 are directed to a device comprising a computer, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 14 and 17 are directed to a method for presenting information, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 15and 18 are directed to a device comprising a computer, which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, the claims recite the limitations of “acquiring work information of a worker, estimating a work process and a work speed executed by the worker, changing a reproduction position, creating a content for presenting information of a work of a next process, outputting the created content, acquires environment information of a periphery of the worker, estimating the work process and work speed of a current work process executed by the worker, changing the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker, creating the content for presenting the information of the work of the next process, and estimate a behavior of the worker”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a control device including a computer that includes a calculation device”, “a storage device” for acquiring and outputting the created content, and “a machine learning model” for estimating a behavior of the worker, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually acquiring work information, estimating a work process and a work speed of a current work process executed by the worker, creating a content for presenting information of a work can be performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, the claims fall within the “mental processes” grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “by a control device including a computer that includes a calculation device” do not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, claim recites a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 14 recites the additional elements of “by a control device including a computer that includes a calculation device”, “a storage device”, and “a machine learning model”. The Specification describes that “The control device 10 of the present embodiment is a computer including a processor (CPU) 101, a memory 102, an auxiliary storage device 103, and a communication interface 104.”(See ¶ 42). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Further, reciting “a machine learning model” to estimate a behavior of the worker in some unspecified way without any technical details of the process fails to reflect any functioning improvement to the computer itself or other technology. The courts have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 14 recites the additional elements of “by a control device including a computer that includes a calculation device”, “a storage device”, and “a machine learning model”. The Specification describes that “The control device 10 of the present embodiment is a computer including a processor (CPU) 101, a memory 102, an auxiliary storage device 103, and a communication interface 104.”(See ¶ 42). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (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); 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); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 14 and 17 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15-16 and 18 parallel claims 14 and 17—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al., (JP 2007/299370, hereinafter: Hashimoto), and in view of Katsu (US 2022/0280071, hereinafter: Katsu), and further in view of Fujita et al., (JP 2022153908, hereinafter: Fujita).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto discloses a control device that presents information to a worker, comprising
a computer (see pg. 37, line 3) that includes a calculation device that executes predetermined calculation processing and a storage device accessible by the calculation device (see pg. 5, ¶ 8-10; pg. 9, ¶ 12; pg. 10, ¶ 1-5; pg. 13, ¶ 7-8; pg. 9, ¶ 2), wherein
the calculation device includes an acquisition unit
PNG
media_image1.png
5
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
that acquires work information of the worker (see pg. 2, last ¶; pg. 3, ¶ 6-7; pg. 4, ¶ 2),
the calculation device includes a work process management unit that estimates a work process and a work speed executed by the worker from the work information (see pg. 13, ¶ 1, ¶ 8; pg. 26, ¶ 7 to 27, ¶ 7; pg. 29, ¶ 1-5; pg. 32, ¶ 1-6), changes a reproduction position, being a presentation start timing of the content, to precede a work of the worker (see pg. 3, last ¶ to pg. 4, ¶ 1; pg. 5, ¶ 8-10; pg. 10, ¶ 5-6; pg. 13, ¶ 8, pg. 15, ¶ 1; pg. 16, ¶ 4-5; pg. 18, ¶ 8-10), and creates a content for presenting information of the work process, the work process including a plurality of work processes to be performed sequentially and each work process having a corresponding different work content to be presented (see pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3; pg. 22, ¶ 6-10; pg. 25, ¶ 9 to pg. 26, ¶ 2; pg. 35, 2nd half), and
the calculation device includes an output unit that outputs the created content to a mixed reality device to display the created content on the mixed reality device (see pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 14, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 4 to pg. 16, ¶ 4);
the acquisition unit acquires environment information of a periphery of the worker (see pg. 2, ¶ 3; pg. 7, ¶ 6-7; pg. 32, ¶ 6), and
the work process management unit estimates the work process and the work speed executed by the worker of a current work process from the work information and the environment information (see pg. 13, ¶ 1, ¶ 8; pg. 26, ¶ 7 to 27, ¶ 7; pg. 29, ¶ 1-5; pg. 32, ¶ 1-6), changes, according to the work speed of the current work process, the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker, and creates the content for presenting the information of the work of the next process via the mixed reality device (see pg. 2, ¶ 2-7; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3; pg. 18, ¶ 8 to pg. 19, ¶ 2; pg. 20, ¶ 6; pg. 24, ¶ 5 to pg. 25, ¶ 5).
Hashimoto discloses a content control unit for determining the work speed of a worker, and calculating the reproduction speed of the manual content to be presented to the worker terminal 20 (see pg. 16, ¶ 2-4).
Hashimoto does not explicitly disclose a calculation device; however, Katsu in an analogous art for information processing discloses
a calculation device (see ¶ 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hashimoto to include teaching of Katsu in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Hashimoto and Katsu do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Fujita in an analogous art for work site support management discloses
changes, according to the work speed of the current work process, the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker (see pg. 15, ¶ 10 to pg. 16, ¶ 2; pg. 17, ¶ 3-5; pg. 19, ¶ 3; pg. 22, ¶ 8 to pg. 23, ¶ 2).
wherein the calculation device is further configured to execute a machine learning model (see pg. 6, ¶ 4) to estimate a behavior of the worker, the machine learning model being trained from motion data of the worker due to one or more chances in a skeleton model of the worker from previous work and behavior information of the worker (see pg. 8, last 2 paragraph; pg. 9, ¶ 10; pg. 11, ¶ 1-4); and
wherein using a relationship between motion data and behavior of the worker estimated by the machine learning model, and detailed information of the work from the estimated behavior of the worker a reproduction speed and the reproduction position of the content displayed by the mixed reality device are variably determined based on a setting of the user and a progress of the work of the worker (see pg. 14, ¶ 3-5; pg. 17, ¶ 3; pg. 19, ¶ 2; pg. 21, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hashimoto and in view of Katsu to include teaching of Fujita in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the phrases “wherein using a relationship between motion data and behavior of the worker estimated by the machine learning model, and detailed information of the work from the estimated behavior of the worker a reproduction speed and the reproduction position of the content displayed by the mixed reality device are variably determined based on a setting of the user and a progress of the work of the worker” are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the environment information includes information of an object on which the worker performs a work (see pg. 2, last ¶ to pg. 3, ¶ 7; pg. 4, ¶ 2-6; pg. 10, ¶ 9-11).
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the work process management unit creates the content that presents information of a work of the next process by at least one of a reproduction speed faster than the estimated work speed and a process preceding the work of the worker (see pg. 16, ¶ 4; pg. 18, ¶ 7 to pg. 19, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the work process management unit creates the content of the next in a series of work processes from the estimated work process (see pg. 22, ¶ 5; pg. 23, ¶ 10; pg. 27, ¶ 10 to pg. 28, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 7, wherein the work process management unit creates a content to include at least two or more of character information, voice information, pointer information, still image information, and moving image information (see pg. 2, ¶ 2; pg. 20, ¶ 3; pg. 23, ¶ 10; pg. 25, ¶ 1-4, ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 9, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 7, wherein the work process management unit determines a skill level of the worker based on a work time of each work process (see pg. 3, ¶ 2-6; pg. 10, ¶ 12; pg. 14, ¶ 10 to pg. 15, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 9, wherein the work process management unit does not display a content in a case where it is determined that the skill level of the worker is high (see ; pg. 10, ¶ 12 to pg. 11, ¶ 1; pg. 16, ¶ 2; pg. 29, ¶ 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires, as work information of the worker, at least one of an image imaged by an imaging device and an operation input of a user (see pg. 4, ¶ 2; pg. 12, ¶ 8-9; pg. 20, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 12, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the work process management unit creates a content of a next process of presenting information of the work 0.5 seconds to 3 seconds earlier than the work of the worker (see pg. 23, ¶ 10; pg. 24, ¶ 6; pg. 25, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the work process management unit determines that a process is ended when the worker performs a finger confirmation operation and a line-of-sight position of the worker is a place to be confirmed in the process (see pg. 2, ¶ 9 to pg. 3, 1; pg. 3, ¶ 11 to pg. 4, ¶ 1; pg. 18, 4).
Regarding claim 14, Hashimoto discloses an information presentation method performed by a control device presenting information to a worker, the control device including a computer that includes a calculation device that executes predetermined calculation processing and a storage device accessible by the calculation device (see pg. 5, ¶ 8-10; pg. 9, ¶ 12; pg. 10, ¶ 1-5; pg. 13, ¶ 7-8; pg. 9, ¶ 2),
the information presentation method comprising:
acquiring, by the calculation device, work information of the worker (see pg. 2, last ¶; pg. 3, ¶ 6-7; pg. 4, ¶ 2);
estimating, by the calculation device, a work process and a work speed executed by the worker from the work information (see pg. 13, ¶ 1, ¶ 8; pg. 26, ¶ 7 to 27, ¶ 7; pg. 29, ¶ 1-5; pg. 32, ¶ 1-6), changing a reproduction position, being a presentation start timing of the content, to precede a work of the worker (see pg. 3, last ¶ to pg. 4, ¶ 1; pg. 5, ¶ 8-10; pg. 9, ¶ 3-5; pg. 10, ¶ 6; pg. 13, ¶ 8, pg. 15, ¶ 1; pg. 16, ¶ 4-5; pg. 18, ¶ 8-10), and creating a content for presenting information of a work of the work process, the work process including a plurality of work processes to be performed sequentially and each work process having a corresponding different work content to be presented (see pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3; pg. 22, ¶ 6-10; pg. 25, ¶ 9 to pg. 26, ¶ 2; pg. 35, 2nd half); and
outputting, by the calculation device, the created content to a mixed reality device to display the created content on the mixed reality device (see pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 14, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 4 to pg. 16, ¶ 4);
acquiring the acquisition unit acquires environment information of a periphery of the worker (see pg. 2, ¶ 3; pg. 7, ¶ 6-7; pg. 32, ¶ 6), and
estimating the work process and the work speed of a current work process executed by the worker from the work information and the environment information (see pg. 13, ¶ 1, ¶ 8; pg. 26, ¶ 7 to 27, ¶ 7; pg. 29, ¶ 1-5; pg. 32, ¶ 1-6), changing, according to the work speed of the current work process, the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker, and creating a content for presenting information of a work of the work process, the work process including a plurality of work processes to be performed sequentially and each work process having a corresponding different work content to be presented (see pg. 2, ¶ 2-7; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3;pg. 18, ¶ 8 to pg. 19, ¶ 2; pg. 20, ¶ 6; pg. 24, ¶ 5 to pg. 25, ¶ 5).
Hashimoto discloses a content control unit for determining the work speed of a worker, and calculating the reproduction speed of the manual content to be presented to the worker terminal 20 (see pg. 16, ¶ 2-4).
Hashimoto does not explicitly disclose a calculation device; however, Katsu in an analogous art for information processing discloses
a calculation device (see ¶ 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hashimoto to include teaching of Katsu in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Hashimoto and Katsu do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Fujita in an analogous art for work site support management discloses
changing, according to the work speed of the current work process, the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker (see pg. 15, ¶ 10 to pg. 16, ¶ 2; pg. 17, ¶ 3-5; pg. 19, ¶ 3; pg. 22, ¶ 8 to pg. 23, ¶ 2); and
executing a machine learning model (see pg. 6, ¶ 4) to estimate a behavior of the worker, the machine learning model being trained from motion data of the worker due to one or more chances in a skeleton model of the worker from previous work and behavior information of the worker (see pg. 8, last 2 paragraph; pg. 9, ¶ 10; pg. 11, ¶ 1-4); and
wherein using a relationship between motion data and behavior of the worker estimated by the machine learning model, and detailed information of the work from the estimated behavior of the worker a reproduction speed and the reproduction position of the content displayed by the mixed reality device are variably determined based on a setting of the user and a progress of the work of the worker (see pg. 14, ¶ 3-5; pg. 17, ¶ 3; pg. 19, ¶ 2; pg. 21, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hashimoto and in view of Katsu to include teaching of Fujita in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the phrases “wherein using a relationship between motion data and behavior of the worker estimated by the machine learning model, and detailed information of the work from the estimated behavior of the worker a reproduction speed and the reproduction position of the content displayed by the mixed reality device are variably determined based on a setting of the user and a progress of the work of the worker” are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 15, Hashimoto discloses a control device that presents information to a worker, comprising:
a computer that includes a calculation device that executes predetermined calculation processing and a storage device accessible by the calculation device (see pg. 5, ¶ 8-10; pg. 9, ¶ 12; pg. 10, ¶ 1-5; pg. 13, ¶ 7-8; pg. 9, ¶ 2),
wherein:
the calculation device includes an acquisition unit that acquires work information of the worker (see pg. 2, last ¶; pg. 3, ¶ 6-7; pg. 4, ¶ 2),
the calculation device includes a work process management unit that estimates a work process and a work speed executed by the worker from the work information (see pg. 3, last ¶ to pg. 4, ¶ 1; pg. 5, ¶ 8-10; pg. 10, ¶ 6; pg. 13, ¶ 8, pg. 15, ¶ 1; pg. 16, ¶ 4-5; pg. 18, ¶ 8-10), and creates a content of a next process in a series of work processes from the estimated work process, the work process including a plurality of work processes to be performed sequentially and each work process having a corresponding different work content to be presented (see pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3; pg. 22, ¶ 6-10; pg. 25, ¶ 9 to pg. 26, ¶ 2; pg. 35, 2nd half), and
the calculation device includes an output unit that outputs the created content to a mixed reality device to display the created content on the mixed reality device (see pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 14, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 4 to pg. 16, ¶ 4);
the acquisition unit acquires environment information of a periphery of the worker (see pg. 2, ¶ 3; pg. 7, ¶ 6-7; pg. 32, ¶ 6), and
the work process management unit estimates the work process and the work speed of a current work process executed by the worker from the work information and the environment information, changes, according to the work speed of the current work process, the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker, and creates the content for presenting the information of the work of the next process via the mixed reality device (see pg. 2, ¶ 6, ¶ 8; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3; pg. 18, ¶ 7 to pg. 19, ¶ 2; pg. 25, ¶ 4-5; pg. 27, ¶ 6-7; pg. 29, ¶ 1-5; pg. 32, ¶ 1-6).
Hashimoto discloses a content control unit for determining the work speed of a worker, and calculating the reproduction speed of the manual content to be presented to the worker terminal 20 (see pg. 16, ¶ 2-4).
Hashimoto does not explicitly disclose a calculation device; however, Katsu in an analogous art for information processing discloses
a calculation device (see ¶ 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hashimoto to include teaching of Katsu in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Hashimoto and Katsu do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Fujita in an analogous art for work site support management discloses
changes, according to the work speed of the current work process, the reproduction position of content corresponding to a subsequent work process to a predetermined amount of time before an end timing of the current work process to precede the work of the worker (see pg. 15, ¶ 10 to pg. 16, ¶ 2; pg. 17, ¶ 3-5; pg. 19, ¶ 3; pg. 22, ¶ 8 to pg. 23, ¶ 2);
wherein the calculation device is further configured to execute a machine learning model (see pg. 6, ¶ 4) to estimate a behavior of the worker, the machine learning model being trained from motion data of the worker due to one or more chances in a skeleton model of the worker from previous work and behavior information of the worker (see pg. 8, last 2 paragraph; pg. 9, ¶ 10; pg. 11, ¶ 1-4); and
wherein using a relationship between motion data and behavior of the worker estimated by the machine learning model, and detailed information of the work from the estimated behavior of the worker a reproduction speed and the reproduction position of the content displayed by the mixed reality device are variably determined based on a setting of the user and a progress of the work of the worker (see pg. 14, ¶ 3-5; pg. 17, ¶ 3; pg. 19, ¶ 2; pg. 21, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hashimoto and in view of Katsu to include teaching of Fujita in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the phrases “wherein using a relationship between motion data and behavior of the worker estimated by the machine learning model, and detailed information of the work from the estimated behavior of the worker a reproduction speed and the reproduction position of the content displayed by the mixed reality device are variably determined based on a setting of the user and a progress of the work of the worker” are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and in view of Katsu as applied to claims 1 and 5-18 above, and further in view of Domoyuki et al., (KR 19980042403, hereinafter: Domoyuki).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto and Katsu do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Domoyuki in an analogous art for managing reproduction discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the work process management unit creates a content including scenes switched with lapse of time (see pg. 10, ¶ 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hashimoto and in view of Katsu to include teaching of Domoyuki in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing presentation process, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada et al., (US 2004/0085291) discloses a method for providing an information processing unit capable of accurately recognizing an instructed position for reproduced data.
Ogi et al., (US 2017/0171498) discloses an apparatus comprising an image information acquisition unit that acquires image information and an image storage processing unit that generates an image file on the basis of the acquired image information.
Shibuya et al., (US 2007/0282479) discloses a method for dividing a moving picture of a worker’s work movement into a plurality of movement sections in an apparatus.
Ota et al., (US 2011/0116771) discloses a method for determining a reproduction speed of a video and sets a parallax parameter corresponding to the reproduction speed of a video.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624