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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: FINE DUST MONITORING METHOD AND DEVICE AND SYSTEM USING THE SAME FOR MONITORING WORKPLACE AIR CONDITION.
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 limitations 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 limitations are: “an event detection module configured to check”; “a photographing module configured to photograph”; and “a first fine dust measurement module configured to output” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “photographed video image” in claims 1, 3-5, 10-11, and 14-15 is an indefinite term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “photographed video image” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims, particularly claim 4 with the mention that the region moves within the photographed video image, and page 14 of the specification particularly, lines 7-11, seem to imply that the photographed video image is a continuous series of images or a video. However, the term is indefinite since the terminology implies that it is a photograph or could be a single frame of a video constituting a video image. This is further confused by other parts of the specification simply referring to this as a “video image photographed” or more plainly as a “video image” with the first implying a photographed frame of a video with the later implying a frame of a video. As there are multiple seemingly contradictory definitions provided by the specification, claims, and from the plain meaning of the phrasing, these claims are found to be indefinite. Further, the claims that depend upon them, claims 2, 6-9, and 12-13 are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: elements of the noise generation that is meant to be greater than a preset sound. The claims omit the elements that are meant to actually be compared. Are the decibels/noise of the noise generation supposed to be equal to or greater than the preset noise? Or is it a different variable like amplitude, wavelength, or even some other variable? The lack of any definitive thing being compared renders this claim indefinite in this way. For claim interpretation purposes, this is being defined as if the noise generated is louder than a preset noise or noise threshold.
The term “work operation” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “work operation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “work operation” in context seems to imply that the operation of the preset equipment is something more than just the equipment being turned on or left active, but what constitutes a “work operation”? If a worker is simply moving a truck or other vehicle, does that constitute a work operation? Is moving something out of the way enough to be considered a “work operation” of an object? People of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably disagree as to what constitutes a “work operation” as such, this claim is indefinite in this other way as well. For claim interpretation purposes, this is being interpreted as using an object for its intended use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chul et al. (KR 20230067463 A), hereinafter referred to as Chul.
In regards to claim 1, Chul discloses a fine dust monitoring method performed in a monitoring device installed at a place for which a fine dust monitoring service is provided, the method comprising: checking whether or not a preset first measurement event occurs in an area covered by the monitoring device (Paragraph 19, This paragraph discloses that the area checked is an area that wants to be checked, and any measurement event would occur in that wanted are which would be covered by the device); photographing an occurrence point of the first measurement event when the first measurement event occurs (Paragraphs 8-9, Discloses that the area is photographed and videoed); and outputting a fine dust concentration of a point where the first measurement event occurred by inputting a photographed video image according to the first measurement event to a pre-trained first deep learning model (Paragraphs 10-12, Discloses that the concentration of dust is calculated from the input of the image/photograph).
In regards to claim 3, Chul discloses wherein, in the outputting of the fine dust concentration, the first deep learning model is caused to extract a target region from the photographed video image and output a fine dust concentration of the extracted target region (Paragraph 34, The paragraph describes that the region is extracted from the image and that concentration is output).
In regards to claim 5, Chul discloses generating a notification signal based on the target region of the photographed video image and the fine dust concentration of the target region; and transmitting the notification signal to a user terminal (Paragraphs 69 and 78, These paragraphs note that the terminal receives a notification based on the classification).
In regards to claim 10, Chul discloses checking whether or not a preset second measurement event occurs (Paragraphs 18 and 22, Paragraph 18 discloses that a second measuring or second reception process can occur, and paragraph 22 discloses that the terms first and second can demonstrate interchangeability of first and second processes); photographing the front of the monitoring device or a preset place when the second measurement event occurs (Paragraphs 18 and 22, Paragraph 18 discloses that the area is photographed which reads upon this limitation); and measuring the fine concentration dust of a photographing target point based on a photographed video image according to the second measurement event (Paragraphs 18 and 22, Discloses that the concentration of dust is calculated).
In regards to claim 14, it is similar to claim 1, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 15, Chul discloses a fine dust monitoring system comprising: a monitoring device that is installed at a place for which a fine dust monitoring service is provided and configured to photograph a corresponding point according to an occurrence of a preset first measurement event (Paragraphs 8-9, Discloses that the area is photographed and videoed), extract a target region of a photographed video image according to the first measurement event by inputting the photographed video image into a pre-trained first deep learning model (Paragraphs 10-12 and 34, the paragraph describes that the region is extracted from the image and that concentration is output. Paragraphs 10-12 disclose that the concentration of dust is calculated from the input of the image/photograph), output a fine dust concentration of the target region (Paragraph 34, The paragraph describes that the region is extracted from the image and that concentration is output), and generates a notification signal based on the target region and the fine dust concentration of the target region (Paragraphs 69 and 78, These paragraphs note that the terminal receives a notification based on the classification); and one or more user terminals configured to receive the notification signal from the monitoring device (Paragraphs 69 and 78, These paragraphs note that the terminal receives a notification based on the classification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul et al. (KR 20230067463 A), hereinafter referred to as Chul, in view of Oh et al. (US 20210063036 A1), hereinafter referred to as Oh.
In regards to claim 2, Chul does not explicitly disclose wherein the first measurement event includes one or more of detection of a moving means equal to or greater than a preset speed, detection of noise generation equal to or greater than a preset sound, and detection of a work operation of preset equipment.
However, Oh does disclose wherein the first measurement event includes one or more of detection of a moving means equal to or greater than a preset speed, detection of noise generation equal to or greater than a preset sound, and detection of a work operation of preset equipment (Paragraph 131, Oh discloses that the analysis engine can determine if the sound of a vacuum cleaner turned on is greater than a predetermined level which would cover the detection of a work operation of preset equipment and the detection of noise generation equal to or greater than a preset sound).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Chul and Oh as it would lead to a predictable increase in the accuracy of detecting people. The invention is directed towards the operation of this method and device in a workplace as such, the ability to detect people talking or using work equipment would lead to a predictable increase in the ability to detect people within a workspace.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul et al. (KR 20230067463 A), hereinafter referred to as Chul, in view of Hwan et al. (KR 102653942 B1), hereinafter referred to as Hwan.
In regards to claim 4, Chul does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the outputting of the fine dust concentration, the first deep learning model is caused to create a bounding box around the target region while tracking the target region according to changes in a location and size of the target region in the photographed video image, and create the bounding box around each target region when a plurality of target regions are extracted from the photographed video image.
However, Hwan does disclose wherein, in the outputting of the fine dust concentration, the first deep learning model is caused to create a bounding box around the target region while tracking the target region according to changes in a location and size of the target region in the photographed video image (Paragraph 105, The paragraph discloses that the regions can receive a bounding box via bounding box regression with bounding box regression refining the results of the bounding box, this would be able to compensate for a change in the location and/or size of a region), and create the bounding box around each target region when a plurality of target regions are extracted from the photographed video image (Paragraph 105, Since multiple regions are disclosed in the paragraph and that the bounding box is stated to correspond with each region, there is an implication of multiple bounding boxes).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine these two references as the usage of bounding boxes would lead to a predictable increase in accuracy for the detection of the dust. As the dust is microscopic and invisible to the naked human eye, it makes it difficult to track for any person. When this fact is combined with the fact that clouds of dust do not adhere to any rigid shape, it necessitates some kind of approximation for the region that they occupy which is provided by bounding boxes. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine these two references.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul et al. (KR 20230067463 A), hereinafter referred to as Chul, in view of Park et al. (US 20200042861 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park, and Young et al. (KR 20250019456 A), hereinafter referred to as Young.
In regards to claim 6, Chul does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the generating of the notification signal, different types of notification signals are generated depending on a range of the target region and a magnitude of a fine dust concentration value of the target region.
Park does disclose in the generating of the notification signal, different types of notification signals are generated depending on a magnitude of a fine dust concentration value of the target region (Paragraph 14, Paragraph 14 of park discloses that a User is notified once the dust levels get beyond a specific threshold which would cover the magnitude aspect).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Chul and Park as it would lead to a predictable increase in awareness of dangerous levels of fine dust. Directly notifying users of high magnitudes of fine dust would allow people to be able to respond quickly and accurately to the levels shown. If the magnitude reaches a dangerous and damaging levels, notifying people of this face increases the awareness and safety, this makes it prima facie obvious to combine.
However, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the generating of the notification signal, different types of notification signals are generated depending on a range of the target region.
However, Young does disclose wherein, in the generating of the notification signal, different types of notification signals are generated depending on a range of the target region (Paragraphs 7 and 29, Paragraphs 7 and 29 of Park disclose that a signal is sent to the nearest terminal with a worker present).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of all three arts as it would lead to a predictable increase in safety. Having the notifications only go out to a specific region that is affected by high levels of fine dust allows for greater safety as it prevents a more widespread panic from occurring amongst all personnel as only those at risk are notified. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Young with the teachings of Park and Chul.
In regards to claim 7, Young discloses determining a user terminal to which the notification signal is to be transmitted based on a site location corresponding to the target region and a location of the user terminal; and transmitting the notification signal to the determined user terminal (Paragraphs 7 and 29, Paragraph 29 discloses that the message is sent to at least one terminal that is adjacent to the worker’s terminal).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul et al. (KR 20230067463 A), hereinafter referred to as Chul, in view of Lee (US 20240169485 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Chul discloses wherein the measuring of the fine dust concentration further includes: acquiring one or more of environmental information and climate information during the photographing (Paragraphs 18 and 22, Paragraph 18 discloses that the area is photographed which reads upon this limitation); and outputting the fine dust concentration of the photographing target point by inputting the converted image into a pre-trained second deep learning model (Paragraphs 10-12, Discloses that the concentration of dust is calculated from the input of the image/photograph).
Chul does not explicitly disclose generating a converted image by converting the extracted still image into an image with characteristics sensitive to fine dust.
However, Lee does disclose generating a converted image by converting the extracted still image into an image with characteristics sensitive to fine dust (Paragraph 57, Paragraph 57 discloses that the image can be corrected to account for issues with processing which is within a BRI of conversion).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Lee and Chul as it would lead to a predictable increase in accuracy. Being able to correct and modify the images as disclosed by Lee, would allow for the method of Chul to deal with pictures with other kinds of flaws than just blurriness as it would allow for the brightness and contrast to be able to be manipulated to allow for clearer and more easily readable pictures. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine these two art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul et al. (KR 20230067463 A), hereinafter referred to as Chul, in view of Lee (US 20240169485 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20230087048 A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi.
In regards to claim 12, Lee discloses and determining what type of image to convert the still image into based on one or more of the environmental information and climate information (Paragraphs 57, Paragraph 57 discloses that the image can be corrected to account for issues with processing which is within a BRI of conversion and the values that they convert by can be simply substituted for the weather conditions found by Choi).
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the measuring of the fine dust concentration further includes: acquiring one or more of environmental information and climate information during the photographing.
Choi does disclose wherein the measuring of the fine dust concentration further includes: acquiring one or more of environmental information and climate information during the photographing (Paragraphs 70-71, Discloses that the weather information can be accrued over time to during their process).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Choi with Lee and Chul as it would be simply substituting the conditions of Lee with the information of Choi. Choi discloses monitoring various environmental conditions over an extended period of time, and Lee’s variables include things like brightness which would be impacted by the change between day and night along with changes of seasons would impact factors like brightness as such, one could substitute Lee’s factor with the factors that Choi monitors.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul et al. (KR 20230067463 A), hereinafter referred to as Chul, in view of Choi et al. (US 20230087048 A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi, and Song et al. (CN 114511991 A), hereinafter referred to as Song.
In regards to claim 13, Choi discloses further comprising: calculating changes in fine dust concentration values by weather, season, or month based on one or more of the fine dust concentration measured according to the first measurement event and the fine dust concentration measured according to the second measurement event (Paragraphs 70-71, These paragraphs describe that the weather information can be collected and recorded for up to a month to show the various changes in the fine dust concentration).
Choi does not explicitly disclose or tallying one or more of the number of times, time, and frequency of occurrence of fine dust equal to or greater than a preset threshold value based on one or more of the fine dust concentration measured according to the first measurement event and the fine dust concentration measured according to the second measurement event.
However, Song does disclose or tallying one or more of the number of times, time, and frequency of occurrence of fine dust equal to or greater than a preset threshold value based on one or more of the fine dust concentration measured according to the first measurement event and the fine dust concentration measured according to the second measurement event (Tenth new paragraph on page 4, This paragraph discloses that the unit counts the total number of dust particles when their correction probability is greater than a preset number).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these arts as it would lead to a predictable increase in predictability. Choi discloses longer term environmental conditions related to the fine dust, and Song discusses the number of the fine dust particles. As such, they could be combined to better tell which days, weeks, or months have higher occurrences of fine dust. As such, this would lead to certain days, weeks, or months being more easily anticipated to have worse fine dust conditions. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. EST.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675