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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn et al. (hereinafter Glynn – US Doc. No. 20210264764).
Regarding claim 1, Glynn discloses a work support apparatus, comprising:
an acquisition unit (as shown in Figure 5) that acquires biological data on plural workers who engage in shared work related to operation of a plant (see paragraph 0114);
an analysis unit that estimates a state of each of the plural workers on the basis of the biological data on the plural workers and makes an analysis of the state of each of the plural workers (see paragraphs 0237-0239 and 0245 – note that the biometrics are continuously monitored to form a baseline with which to use to estimate the health of each worker); and
a decision unit that determines, on the basis of a result of the analysis by the analysis unit, whether or not intervention in the shared work by the work support apparatus is necessary (see paragraphs 0257-0258 – note that the system may alert the worker for mitigating measures),
wherein the decision unit determines at least one of intervention means for the plant including: a notification to a predetermined worker (see paragraphs 0257-0258 – note that the system alerts the worker); a notification to a person concerned with the predetermined worker (see paragraphs 0257-0258 – note that the system alerts a safety manager/nurse); and control of a plant device installed in the plant (see paragraph 0150 – note that alarms, flashing lights or other safety precautions are triggered). Glynn does however disclose that all workers are monitored (see paragraph 0060). Although Glynn discloses the discloses each of the intervention means as discussed above, Glynn does not specifically disclose that the manner of intervention means is based on conformity among characteristics of the state of the plural workers.
It would have been obvious to use the work support apparatus as disclosed by Glynn in order to monitor one worker and choose a notification based on the workers in the surrounding area (see paragraphs 0271-0273), the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and further one would have been motivated by prioritizing risk of the worker in question based on the surrounding workers (see paragraphs 0271-0273).
Regarding claim 2, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further an execution unit that executes intervention in the plant where the shared work is carried out (see paragraphs 0257-0258 – note that the system alerts the worker and/or a safety manager/nurse), wherein
the decision unit determines an intervention means for the plant in a case where abnormality has been detected by the analysis unit, the abnormality being in a worker engaging in work (see paragraph 0245 – note that when the worker’s temperature exceeds their baseline [read: anomaly] then the worker is flagged for further screening), and
the execution unit executes intervention for the plant on the basis of the intervention means (see paragraphs 0257-0258 – note that the system alerts the worker and/or a safety manager/nurse).
Regarding claim 3, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed in the claim 2 rejection above and further that the acquisition unit further acquires operation data collected from a plant device installed in the plant, work environment data related to an environment in the plant, the environment being where each of the plural workers engages in work, and work data related to work that each of the plural workers engages in (see Figure 1, elements 30 which are all environmental variables in that example),
the analysis unit estimates a physical or psychological state as the state of each of the plural workers on the basis of the biological data collected from a device worn by each of the plural workers, and detects the abnormality in a case where a ratio of workers indicating a predetermined state to the plural workers engaging in the shared work exceeds a threshold (see paragraph 0243),
the decision unit determines the intervention means by using the state of each of the plural workers, the operation data, the work environment data, and the work data, and referring to correspondence relation data indicating a history of invention in the plant (see paragraphs 0115 – note that the sensed information from each worker is stored in a database; see also paragraph 0258 – note that alerts are sent to either the worker or a safety manager), and
the execution unit makes a notification to a predetermined worker or a person concerned with the predetermined worker or executes control of the plant device, according to the intervention means determined (see paragraph 0258 – note that alerts are sent to either the worker or a safety manager).
Regarding claim 4, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed in the claim 3 rejection above and further a classification unit that determines a work process of each of the plural workers by using the work environment data and the work data and makes a classification of the plural workers by the work process shared, wherein the analysis unit analyzes, on the basis of a result of the classification by the classification unit, a state of each of the plural workers who engage in the shared work (see paragraphs 0289 and 0291).
Regarding claim 5, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed in the claim 3 rejection above and further a training unit that trains a machine learning model that outputs an evaluation index for the plant in response to input of time-series data including the biological data, the operation data, the work environment data, or the work data (see paragraph 0144); and
a prediction unit that predicts, on the basis of a result obtained by input of the biological data, operation data, work environment data, or work data changed by execution of the intervention into the machine learning model that has been trained, time evolution of the evaluation index from a time point of the execution of the intervention (see paragraph 0176).
Regarding claim 6, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed in the claim 5 rejection above and further that the decision unit determines the intervention means by using the time evolution predicted by the prediction unit, from plural intervention means selected by reference to the correspondence relation data (see paragraphs 0177-0178 – note that the prediction and machine learning data can be used to generate heat maps which can be shared with management for indicating problem zones).
Regarding claim 7, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed in the claim 5 rejection above and further that the decision unit determines the intervention means from a history of intervention based on the time evolution of the evaluation index predicted by the prediction unit, from plural histories of intervention included in the correspondence relation data (see paragraphs 0149-0151 – specifically 0150 – note that not only is the worker alerted, but also possibly a manager and the surrounding workers based on the data mining).
Regarding claim 8, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed in the claim 3 rejection above and further that the decision unit determines the intervention means that has been specified, from plural intervention means selected by reference to the correspondence relation data (see paragraph 0149).
Method claim 9 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 9 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as discussed above.
Claim 10 has limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection of claim 1, and is met by the reference as discussed above. Claim 10 further recites a computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a work support program that causes a work support apparatus to execute a process (see paragraph 0266).
Regarding claim 11, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further that the decision unit determines at least one of intervention means for the plant including: the notification to the predetermined worker (see paragraphs 0257-0258 – note that the system alerts the worker); the notification to the person concerned with the predetermined worker (see paragraphs 0257-0258 – note that the system alerts a safety manager/nurse); and the control of the plant device installed in the plant (see paragraph 0150 – note that alarms, flashing lights or other safety precautions are triggered). Glynn does not specifically disclose that the manner of intervention means is based on a numerical value indicating a degree of the state of each of the plural workers.
It would have been obvious to use the work support apparatus as disclosed by Glynn in order to monitor one worker and choose a notification based on the workers in the surrounding area (see paragraphs 0271-0273), the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and further one would have been motivated by prioritizing risk of the worker in question based on the surrounding workers (see paragraphs 0271-0273).
Regarding claim 12, Glynn discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Glynn discloses that the characteristics of the state of the worker includes multiple biometric data (see paragraph 0114 – note that the heart rate and brain waves are measured). Glynn does not specifically disclose that the measured characteristics include characteristics of hasty, drowsy, tensed, focused, or relaxed states.
It would have been obvious to use the work support apparatus as disclosed by Glynn in order to monitor biometrics of the worker (see paragraphs 0114 and 0246) including characteristics of hasty, drowsy, tensed, focused, or relaxed states, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and further one would have been motivated by determining the health of the current worker against a baseline (see paragraphs 0246).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM R GIESY whose telephone number is (571)272-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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.
/ADAM R. GIESY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights