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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 24, 2024 and October 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) is/are: “section” in claims 1-10 precedes by modifier that is not structural.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorini, Laura et al. “Daily Gesture Recognition During Human-Robot Interaction Combining Vision and Wearable Systems.” IEEE Sensors Journal 21 (2021): 23568-23577 in view of Ishikawa (Japanese Patent JP2010036762 A).
Regarding claim 1, 11, and 12, Fiorini et. al. discloses a work recognition device, a work recognition method in which a computer executes processing, and non-transitory computer readable medium storing a work recognition program that causes a computer to execute processing comprising: an acquisition section that acquires a photographed image capturing work of a worker (Fiorini et. al., Section III.A, Section III.C); a first detection section that detects, based on the photographed image, first detection information relating to at least one of an object of the work or a hand of the worker, the hand being at least one of a right hand or a left hand of the worker (Fiorini et. al., Section IV.A.1.: “As concerns the RGB images analysis, skeleton features were obtained thanks to the Openpose software [23]…hands…”; “They were also free to grab the objects…” Section III.C; Table II (e.g., fork, pen)); a second detection section that detects, based on the photographed image, second detection information relating to a skeleton of the worker (Fiorini et. al., Section I; Section IV.A.1 “Skeleton data were obtained from an RBG-D camera…Openpose software [23]…”); a first recognition section that executes first recognition processing that recognizes the work, based on the first detection information and the second detection information which have been detected (Fiorini et. al., Section IV.B, Section VI); a second recognition section that executes second recognition processing that recognizes the work, based on the second detection information that has been detected (Fiorini et. al., Section IV.B, Section VI); and an output section that, in a case in which the switching condition is not satisfied, outputs a recognition result of the work by the first recognition section, and in a case in which the switching condition is satisfied, outputs a recognition result of the work by the second recognition section (Fiorini et. al., Section IV.C, Section VI.).
However, Fiorini et. al. fails to disclose a determination section that determines, based on the first detection information, whether or not a switching condition for switching between recognizing the work by the first recognition section or recognizing the work by the second recognition section is satisfied.
Ishikawa teaches a determination section that determines, based on the first detection information, whether or not a switching condition for switching between recognizing the work by the first recognition section or recognizing the work by the second recognition section is satisfied (Ishikawa [0102]-[0106]).
It is a key feature to the claimed invention to include the determination section that determines the type of work done that satisfies the work requested. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the teachings of Ishikawa with the teachings of Fiorini et. al. so that a switching condition is present to improve robustness of recognition processes based on hand/object detection quality.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 1, wherein: the determination section determines that the switching condition is satisfied. Fiorini et. al. further discloses when the switching condition is satisfied in a case in which a distance between the hand and the object is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (Fiorini et. al. Section IV occlusion affects hand detection. Distance thresholding is standard (e.g., Openpose key points). When the hand is occluded by an object, this creates difficulty in detecting accuracy. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion are considered in the threshold standard.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 1, wherein: the determination section determines that the switching condition is satisfied. Fiorini et. al. further discloses when the switching condition is satisfied in a case in which a distance between the right hand and the left hand is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (Fiorini et. al. Section IV.A.1., hand key points are detected). Here, the hand-hand distance calculation is routine and it is possible that the other hand is a source of occlusion. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion are considered in the threshold standard.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 1, wherein: the determination section determines that the switching condition is satisfied. Fiorini et. al. further discloses when the switching condition is satisfied in a case in which a bounding box of the hand and a bounding box of the object do not overlap (Fiorini et. al. Section. IV). The bounding box overlap checks are standard. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion are considered in the threshold standard.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 1, wherein: the determination section determines whether or not the switching condition is satisfied. Fiorini et. al. further discloses when the switching condition is satisfied based on a size of the object that has been detected (Fiorini et. al. objects implied, Table II). Here, the object size estimation is common. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion are considered in the threshold standard.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 5, wherein: the determination section determines that the switching condition is satisfied. Fiorini et. al. further discloses when the switching condition is satisfied in a case in which a size of a bounding box of the object that has been detected is smaller than a predetermined minimum size of the object (Fiorini et. al. Section IV, Table II). Here, the object size estimation is common. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion are considered in the threshold standard.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 5, wherein: the determination section determines that the switching condition is satisfied. Fiorini et. al. further discloses when the switching condition is satisfied in a case in which a size of a bounding box of the object that has been detected is larger than a predetermined maximum size of the object (Fiorini et. al. Section IV, Table II). Here, the object size estimation is common. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion are considered in the threshold standard.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 1. Fiorini et. al. further discloses wherein: the first detection section calculates a degree of reliability of the object that has been detected; and the determination section determines that the switching condition is satisfied in a case in which the degree of reliability of the object is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (Fiorini et. al. Section VI “We found out that the visual recognition system decreases its capabilities…due to the natural occlusion problems…” Here, this implies reliability via occlusion in the subsequent analysis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion are considered in the threshold standard.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 1. Fiorini et. al. further discloses wherein: the determination section determines that the switching condition is satisfied in a case in which a speed of at least one of the hand or the object, which have been detected, is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (Fiorini et. al. Section IV.A.2 inertial sensors measure acceleration/velocity). Here the speed calculation is routine. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion and speed are considered in the threshold standard.
Regarding claim 10, Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa disclose the work recognition device according to claim 1, wherein: the determination section determines that the switching condition is satisfied. Fiorini et. al. further discloses when the switching condition is satisfied in a case in which a position of the hand that has been detected is outside a range of a predetermined work space (Fiorini et. al. Section. IV). The workspace definition is standard here, which is obvious given the lateral position challenges. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Fiorini et. al. and Ishikawa so that the effects of occlusion are considered within the defined workspace.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 February 24, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668