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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine (claim 1, a system) or a process (claim 12, a method), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed
to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mental process. The limitations include:
assign the first ergonomic data to the second ergonomic data in an automated manner and, based on mutually assigned data, to execute a further processing of the assigned data.
The claim is directed to performing analysis which constitutes mental process that can be performed conceptually by a human observer or with pen and paper. This limitation falls within the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and data analysis.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, including the “reception unit”, “processing unit”, and “first and second detection devices” are recited at a high level of generality and are described functionally without specifying any particular implementation or improvement. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm for assignment, a particular synchronization mechanism, or any improvement to sensor technology or computer functionality. Instead, the hardware components merely serve as generic tools for collecting and processing information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “a reception unit, which is configured to receive first ergonomic data from a first detection device and second ergonomic data from a second detection device, wherein the first ergonomic data and the second ergonomic data are mutually independent” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The act of data gathering is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
The recited units are generic computing components performing their conventional functions of receiving and processing data. The automated assignment and further processing of data are routine and conventional data manipulation steps. The is no recited unconventional arrangement of components, no improvement to computer functionality, and transformation of matter beyond data manipulation.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, correlating, and analyzing information and does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-4 merely specify the types of data received (posture, motion, and force, including magnitude, direction, or duration). These limitations narrow the field of use to ergonomic data but do not alter the fundamental character of the claim, which remains directed to data collection and analysis.
Dependent claims 5-9, do not add limitations that integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional limitations merely recite further data manipulation operations, including assigning data captured at specific time points, associating force data with motion or posture, synchronizing data streams, detecting predefined motions in the data, and synchronizing data based on a motion time point. These steps represent additional data collection and analysis operations performed on information obtained from sensing devices. The claims do not recite any improvement to sensor technology, signal acquisition, or computer functionality, but instead merely use generic detection devices and processing units as tools for gathering and analyzing ergonomic data.
Dependent claims 10-11 recite executing an ergonomic evaluation based on the assigned data and based on saved threshold values. Performing an evaluation and comparing data to stored thresholds are also forms of data analysis and therefore fall within the abstract idea grouping of mental processes.
Accordingly, claims 2-11 recite a judicial exception and do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is rejected 35 U.S.C § 101 for the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
Use of the word “means for” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “reception unit” and “processing unit” are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the various modules have the structure of a processor or equivalents (see instant application paragraphs [0006], [0019]-[0020] and [0038]).
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caldwell (Pub. No. US 2014/0266737).
As per claims 1 and 12, Caldwell teaches a reception unit, which is configured to receive first ergonomic data from a first detection device and second ergonomic data from a second detection device (see Abstract and ¶ [0049], i.e., a system including a first device mounted to a wrist strap configured to determine hand grip information (force-related ergonomic data) and a second device mounted to a waist strap configured to determine posture information (motion-related ergonomic data) (the examiner notes that a computing system including wireless communication circuitry configured to receive information from the first and second devices corresponding to a reception unit configured to receive first ergonomic data from a first detection device and second ergonomic data from as second detection device), wherein the first ergonomic data and the second ergonomic data are mutually independent (see Abstract and ¶¶ [0018], [0028] and [0049], i.e., the wrist-mounted device and the waist-mounted device are separate detection devices that generate distinct ergonomic data streams (e.g., grip/force versus posture/motion)), and a processing unit (see ¶ [0049], i.e., a computing system including wireless communication circuitry configured to receive information from the first and second devices), wherein the processing unit is configured to assign the first ergonomic data to the second ergonomic data in an automated manner (see ¶¶ [0030] and [0032], i.e., synchronization and coordination of time stamps between devices and cross-tabulation/aggregation of posture and grip data) (the examiner notes that this corresponds to assigning the first ergonomic data to the second ergonomic data in an automated manner) and, based on mutually assigned data, to execute a further processing of the assigned data (see ¶¶ [0018]-[0020] and [0029]-[0032], i.e., analyzing the synchronized and aggregated data to generate statistical values, determine thresholds, and assess risk injury).
As per claim 2, Caldwell further teaches that the first ergonomic data indicate a physical posture and/or a motion of a user (see ¶¶ [0028], [0029] and [0049]), i.e., posture and motion of a user are detected by a waist or back mounted devices, including accelerometer and gyro circuitry).
As per claim 3, Caldwell further teaches that the second ergonomic data indicate a force which is exerted by the user (see Abstract and ¶ [0049], i.e., the wrist-mounted device determines hand grip information based on sensor circuitry and ¶¶ [0018], [0024] and [0034], i.e., assessment of force associated with motion).
As per claim 4, Caldwell further teaches that the second ergonomic data indicate a magnitude, direction and/or duration of the force (see ¶¶ [0018] and [0027], i.e., measuring magnitude of stress or force, and tracking duration of intervals, ¶¶ [0053] and [0055], i.e., time stamped data).
As per claim 5, Caldwell further teaches that the processing unit is further configured to execute a mutual assignment of the first ergonomic data and the second ergonomic data which are captured at a specific time point (see ¶ [0032], i.e., synchronization signals that coordinate time stamps between monitors, ¶¶ [0030] and [0053], i.e., cross-tabulation of posture and grip data based on synchronized timing).
As per claim 6, Caldwell further teaches that a force exerted is assigned to a captured motion and/or physical posture (see ¶ [0030], i.e., synchronized grip pressure data and back posture data are cross-tabulated).
As per claim 7, Caldwell further teaches that the processing unit is further configured to synchronize the first ergonomic data and the second ergonomic data (see ¶ [0032], i.e., synchronizing one or more monitors to provide coordination of time stamps).
As per claim 10, Caldwell further teaches that the processing unit is further configured to execute an ergonomic evaluation based on the assigned data (see ¶¶ [0018]-[0020], [0029]-[0030] and [0069], i.e., evaluation based on assigned posture and force data, including injury risk assessment and statistical analysis).
As per claim 11, Caldwell further teaches that the processing unit is further configured to execute the ergonomic evaluation based on saved threshold values (see ¶¶ [0020] and [0031], i.e., determining baselines and threshold levels for risk analysis, ¶¶ [0040]-[0042], i.e., storing/analyzing data longitudinally).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldwell in view of Bhushan (Pub. No. US 2014/0326084).
As per claim 8, Caldwell teaches the system as stated above except that the processing unit is further configured to detect a predefined motion in the first ergonomic data and the second ergonomic data.
However, Bhushan teaches monitoring ergonomic data including posture, motion, and force (see ¶¶ [0017], [0019] and [0033]) and categorizing and identifying movement types such as lifting, bending, kneeling, and overhead motion based on collected sensor data (see ¶¶ [0036], [0046] and [0054]-[0056]). Such categorization constitutes detection of predefined motions using ergonomic sensor data. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure the synchronized multi-sensor system of Caldwell to detect predefined motion events using the collected posture and force data as taught by Bhushan, because motion events inherently produce both kinematic signatures and corresponding force signatures, and applying known movement-classification techniques to available ergonomic data steams would have predictably improved motion identification accuracy and ergonomic risk assessment reliability.
As per claim 9, the combination of Caldwell and Bhushan teaches the system as stated above. As discussed with respect to claim 8, Bhushan teaches predefined motions based on ergonomic sensor data. Caldwell further teaches synchronizing monitors using signal/time synchronization such that an instant of movement of the upper extremity and the back may be accurately noted across sensors (see ¶ [0032]), and further teaches associating posture and grip force data from synchronized monitors through cross-tabulation (see ¶ [0030]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the time point of the detected motion as the reference time for the synchronized ergonomic data streams in the system of Caldwell because detecting a motion event provides a natural temporal reference for correlating measurements obtained from different sensors, thereby enabling posture and force measurements corresponding to the same detected movement to be temporally aligned and analyzed together for improved ergonomic evaluation.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Gong et al. [‘882] discloses wearable sensors with ergonomic assessment metric usage, where that wearable sensors include muscle activity sensors, skeletal movement sensors, stretch sensors, inertial measurement sensors, or linear displacement sensors. Data is obtained from a wearable muscle activity sensor. Muscle activity over a time period is determined using the data obtained from the wearable muscle activity sensor. A movement assessment metric is calculated based on the muscle activity over the time period. The movement assessment can include body posture symmetry.
Di Pardo et al. [‘811] discloses a sensorized glove, in particular designed for ergonomic analysis, including an inner glove, which comprises a plurality of extensometer sensors configured for detecting relative movements between parts of a worker's hand; and an outer glove, which comprises a plurality of pressure sensors distributed over a palmar surface and configured for detecting the pressure exerted in corresponding areas of said palmar surface. Moreover; described is a corresponding method for determining the type of grasp exerted by a worker.
Poupyrev et al. [‘133] discloses systems and methods of determining an ergonomic assessment for a user are provided. For instance, sensor data can be received from one or more sensors implemented with an ergonomic assessment garment worn by a user. Corporeal data associated with at least one body segment of the user can be determined based at least in part on the sensor data. The corporeal data is associated with a bend angle associated with the at least one body segment. An ergonomic assessment associated with the user can be determined based at least in part on the corporeal data. The ergonomic assessment can include an indication of one or more ergonomic zones associated with the user, the one or more ergonomic zones being determined based at least in part on the bend angle associated with the at least one body segment.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857