DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/716,208 filed on 06/04/2024. In response to the Election/Restriction requirement of 12/17/2025, Applicant, on 02/11/2026, elected Group I, claims 1-8 and 14, for examination. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application, of which claims 1-8 and 14 have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/716,208 filed 06/04/2024 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/046594, International Filing Date: 12/19/2022, and claims foreign priority to 2021-206466, filed 12/20/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 06/06/2024 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction dated 12/17/2025 in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged.
6. In response to the restriction requirement, dated 12/17/2025, Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-8 and 14, on 02/11/2026. Claims 9-13 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 02/11/202
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. As described in the Election/Restriction Requirement dated 12/17/2025, restriction to one of the following inventions was required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. Group I claims 1-8 and 14: drawn to an invention for identifying a substitutable task that can be replaced or assisted by introduction of a device, and outputting change information corresponding to a change in the task performed by the worker by introduction of the device (classified in CPC class G06Q, subclass 10/06), and Group II claim 9-13 and 15-16: drawn to an invention for identifying a changeable task whose execution time can be moved to another time frame, based on work actual condition data (classified in CPC class G06Q, subclass 10/0631).
The traversal is on the ground(s) “that the search and examination of Group I and Group II can be made together without serious burden. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the Restriction Requirement clearly indicated that restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given in the Restriction requirement and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
As set forth in the Election/Restriction Requirement, Invention I and II are independent and distinct under 35 U.S.C. 121 for several reasons, including differences in subject matter, classification, and required fields of search. Specifically, as detailed in the restriction, Groups I and II address distinct technical problems and solutions. Group I focuses on identifying substitutable tasks and assessing the impact of introducing a device, whereas Group II addresses optimizing task scheduling based on work actual condition data. While Groups I and II, share the feature of obtaining information indicating stay time of a worker in each of a plurality of areas, this feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of, e.g., Ridge et al., (Patent No.: US 9,020,848 B1) in at least col. 1, lines 37-46 and claim 1, evincing the conventional nature of obtaining information indicating stay time of a worker in each of a plurality of areas (col. 1, lines 37-46: “a method and system for tracking time and location of an employee based on a predetermined schedule and an assigned work zone”; claim 1: “recording a work time spent by the employee in the at least one work zone during the work schedule”) and Dickerson et al., Patent No.: US 10,235,657 B2 (col. 1, lines 64-67, discussing tracking a time of an individual at a workplace). Accordingly, the purported common feature cannot establish a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1
Even if it were to be assumed that the shared features constitute technical features, they still fail to qualify as special technical features because they do not distinguish the claimed inventios from the prior art. Therefore, combining search and examination for Groups I and II would involve a processual burden. Searching these inventions would require accessing different patent classes and subclasses, developing distinct search queries tailored to the specific features of each invention, and consulting different sets of non-patent literature. The differences demonstrate that examining the inventions together would impose a serious search and examination burden, consistent with MPEP 806.05(d).
As evidenced by the Restriction Requirement, there are provided different systems. The claim groups recite various embodiments of different systems. It is noted that the separate utilities present distinctive subject matter that would have to be individually searched and would not necessarily present itself via a single generic search of a particular class/subclass. Applicant's divergent claiming places a significant burden on the Examiner’s search in that each feature will singularly require significant time to search. Additional search time via the employment of expanded and different search queries would be necessary to account for each of these features which would not exist if just one were claimed. Moreover, not only does the Examiner have to search class and subclass in the patent databases, there are numerous non patent literature electronic resource databases, accessible using tools such as DIALOG, Proquest, NEXIS, Google, etc., which are also searched prior to any patentability determination, further adding to the Examiner’s overall search duration. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); (d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; (e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Although the subcombinations could be used together, they also possess separate and distinct utility. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error.
Claim 14 recites “An information processing method performed by a processer of an information processing apparatus having a storage device…” Claim 14 should recite “An information processing method performed by a processor of an information processing apparatus having a storage device…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-8 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
10. Claim 1 recites “identifying a substitutable task which is substituted or assisted by introduction of a predetermined device, among a plurality of tasks of the work performed in the workplace; and outputting change information corresponding to a change in the task performed by the worker by introduction of the device, based on relationship between the work time of each of the plurality of tasks indicated by the work actual condition data and the substitutable task; and a storage device configured to store the substitutable task and information associating the substitutable task with the device which substitutes or assists the substitutable task…” The phrases “the device” lack antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. While the claim introduces “a predetermined device” and “a storage device,” the claim does not introduce “a device.” It is unclear whether the first instance of “the device” refers to the previously introduced “a predetermined device” or to a different device. It also unclear whether the second instance of “the device” refers to the previously introduced “predetermined device,” “storage device” or to a different device. Appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 2 recites “calculating the work actual condition data indicating the work time of each of the plurality of tasks in each predetermined time period…” The phrase “each predetermined time period” lacks antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
12. Claims 3-6 also recite the limitation “the device,” which lacks antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
13. Claim 5 recites “wherein the change information includes information indicating at least one of the task, the work time, the number of the workers, and the labor cost of the workers…”.” The phrase “the number of the workers,” “the workers,” and “the labor cost” lack antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 1/5 do not introduce “workers” (plural), “a number of workers,” and “labor cost.” Appropriate correction is required.
14. Claim 7 recites “outputting information indicating the number of the introduced devices.” The phrases “the number” and “the introduced devices” lack antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
15. Claim 8 recites the limitations “the number of customers” and “the number of the workers.” The phrases the number of customers” and “the number of the workers” lack antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 1/8 do not introduce “a number of customers,” “workers” (plural) and “a number of workers.” Appropriate correction is required.
16. Claim 14 recites “outputting change information corresponding to a change in the task performed by the worker by introduction of the device, based on relationship between the work time of each of the plurality of tasks indicated by the work actual condition data and the substitutable task, wherein the storage device is configured to store the substitutable task and information associating the substitutable task with the device…” The phrases “the device” lack antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. While the claim introduces “a predetermined device” and “a storage device,” the claim does not introduce “a device.” It is unclear whether the first instance of “the device” refers to the previously introduced “a predetermined device” or to a different device. It also unclear whether the second instance of “the device” refers to the previously introduced “predetermined device,” “storage device” or to a different device. Appropriate correction is required.
17. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
20. Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the apparatus (claims 1-8) and method (claim 14) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-8 and 14 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing worker tasks, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: a control unit configured to perform: obtaining information indicating stay time of a worker in each of a plurality of areas, the worker performing work in a workplace including the plurality of areas; calculating work actual condition data indicating work time of the work performed in each of the plurality of areas based on the stay time; identifying a substitutable task which is substituted or assisted by introduction of a predetermined device, among a plurality of tasks of the work performed in the workplace; and outputting change information corresponding to a change in the task performed by the worker by introduction of the device, based on relationship between the work time of each of the plurality of tasks indicated by the work actual condition data and the substitutable task; and a storage device configured to store the substitutable task and information associating the substitutable task with the device which substitutes or assists the substitutable task, wherein the identifying includes identification of the substitutable task by determining whether or not the task indicated by the work actual condition data corresponds to the substitutable task stored in the storage device. The claim focuses on monitoring workers and determining task substitutions. Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions, which falls under the under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited are: a control unit configured to and a storage device configured to (claim 1), a processer of an information processing apparatus having a storage device (claim 14). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the steps for obtaining and outputting are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited are: a control unit configured to and a storage device configured to (claim 1), a processer of an information processing apparatus having a storage device (claim 14). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification acknowledges that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general purpose computer executing instructions to implement the invention (Specification, paragraph 0030). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
Even if the steps for obtaining and outputting are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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).
Similarly, with respect to the “storing” step, even if considered as an additional element, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), nor add significantly more because such activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).” See MPEP 2106.05(d).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to recite details that narrow the same abstracts idea(s) recited in the independent claims, i.e., activities falling within the Certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping as described in MPEP 2106, along with, at most, additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. In particular, dependent claims 2-8 recite steps for “calculating the work actual condition data indicating the work time of each of the plurality of tasks in each predetermined time period; determining whether or not each of the plurality of tasks corresponds to the substitutable task, in each of a plurality of the time periods; and outputting the change information corresponding to a result of the determining,” “perform the work,” “wherein the change information includes information for contrasting work time before introduction of the device with work time after introduction of the device,” “wherein the change information includes information indicating at least one of the task, the work time, the number of the workers, and the labor cost of the workers, which are reduced by introduction of the device,” “wherein the change information includes a work schedule indicating the task and auxiliary task which needs to be performed by introduction of the device,” “outputting information indicating the number of the introduced devices, based on relationship between the work time of each of the plurality of tasks indicated by the work actual condition data and the substitutable task,” “wherein the workplace includes a store where products to be purchased by a customer are displayed, obtaining information indicating the number of customers in the store; and based on the work time in a settlement device for accepting settlement by the customer, and the number of the customers, outputting information indicating an amount which can be reduced in at least one of the work time in the settlement device, the number of workers, and labor cost of the workers,” which encompass activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. Dependent claims recite additional elements of: wherein the device includes at least one of a robot configured to and a device or a system used by the worker or a visitor of the workplace (claim 3), settlement device (claim 8). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible. Even if the steps for obtaining (claim 8) and outputting (claim 2, 7-8) are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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).
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0113781 A1, [hereinafter Kim], in view of Trivelpiece et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0394589 A1, [hereinafter Trivelpiece].
As per claim 1, Kim teaches an information processing apparatus (paragraph 0003) comprising:
a control unit configured to perform (paragraph 0003, discussing that the system includes at least one hardware processor, a display coupled to the at least one hardware processor and configured to display a user interface, and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform various functions; paragraph 0019, discussing that the first computer program is configured to perform the task at least in part by controlling one or more other computer programs. In some embodiments, the first computer program is configured to control the one or more other computer programs through at least one graphical user interface (GUI) of the one or more other computer programs...; paragraph 0075, discussing that the tracking system further includes a central controller that may be a computing device, such as a server…; paragraph 0119):
obtaining information of a worker, the worker performing work in a workplace
calculating work actual condition data indicating work time of the work performed in each of the plurality of areas (paragraph 0010, discussing identifying a length of time that the task is performed by the user and a monetary value of time of the user; paragraph 0059, determine how much time employees are spending on tasks, identifying manual and/or repetitive tasks which may be automated, and measuring effort (e.g., time) spent on certain tasks);
identifying a substitutable task which is substituted or assisted by introduction of a predetermined device, among a plurality of tasks of the work performed in the workplace (paragraph 0007, discussing a system for identifying automatable tasks; paragraph 0037, discussing a method, performed by a computing device, for discovering automatable tasks; paragraph 0060, discussing that the identified tasks performed by one or more employees of a business may be automatically evaluated for automating using software. For example, the information collected may be employed to create software robot computer programs (hereinafter, “software robots”) that are configured to programmatically control one or more other computer programs to perform one or more tasks…For example, an automatable task may be identified from the collected computer usage data and a software developer may create a software robot to perform the automatable task…; paragraph 0101, discussing an act of generating an automation score for identified task(s), an act of determining whether the automation score exceeds a threshold, an act of generating software robot(s) to perform task(s), and an act of executing the software robot(s); paragraph 0114, discussing that a Scout Service may generate a software robot that is configured to perform the task; paragraphs 0061, 0112);
outputting change information corresponding to a change in the task performed by the worker by introduction of the device, based on relationship between the work time of each of the plurality of tasks indicated by the work actual condition data and the substitutable task (paragraph 0081, discussing a dashboard service that provides a visual representation of the information stored in the database. For example, the dashboard service may be a series of user interface screens…These user interface screens may be accessible over the internet…It should be appreciated that the Scout Service may provide access to the data in the database through still yet other ways. For example, Scout Service may accept queries through a command-line interface (CLI), such as psql, or a graphical user interface (GUI); paragraph 0112, discussing that it should be appreciated that other values may be determined for particular tasks separate from an automation score. For example, Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot; paragraph 0113, discussing that the Scout Service may determine whether the automation score exceeds a threshold. For example, a task with an automation score that exceeds the threshold may be a good candidate for automation. Accordingly, Scout Service may proceed to automate the task if the automation score exceeds the threshold by performing act of generating software robot(s) to perform the task and act of executing the generated software robot(s)); and
a storage device configured to store the substitutable task and information associating the substitutable task with the device which substitutes or assists the substitutable task (paragraph 0006, discussing that the system further comprises a random access memory; paragraph 0018, discussing that the system further comprises a volatile memory; paragraph 0060, discussing that
an automatable task may be identified from the collected computer usage data and a software developer may create a software robot to perform the automatable task; paragraph 0075, discussing storing the collected information in the database; paragraph 0078, discussing storing the log files in the log bank. Scout Service 103 may also periodically upload the logs in the log bank 108 to a database . It should be appreciated that the database may be any type of database including...Further, the events stored in the database and/or the log bank may be stored redundantly to reduce the likelihood of data loss from, for example, equipment failures; paragraph 0113, discussing that the Scout Service may determine whether the automation score exceeds a threshold. For example, a task with an automation score that exceeds the threshold may be a good candidate for automation. Accordingly, Scout Service may proceed to automate the task if the automation score exceeds the threshold by performing act of generating software robot(s) to perform the task and act of executing the generated software robot(s); paragraphs 0077, 0090, 0112),
wherein the identifying includes identification of the substitutable task by determining whether or not the task indicated by the work actual condition data corresponds to the substitutable task stored in the storage device (paragraph 0061, discussing that the information regarding the particular tasks performed by employees may be used to track the time spent on particular projects and, thereby, inform management as to the true cost of a project…In other embodiments, the information may be employed to identify tasks that are frequently performed by employees and assess the economic viability of automating the task. For example, the cost of creating a software robot to perform the task may be compared with the cost of having employees perform the task. In yet other embodiments, the information may be employed to monitor the time required to perform a particular task; paragraph 0101, discussing an act of generating an automation score for identified task(s), an act of determining whether the automation score exceeds a threshold, an act of generating software robot(s) to perform task(s), and an act of executing the software robot(s); paragraph 0112, discussing that it should be appreciated that other values may be determined for particular tasks separate from an automation score. For example, Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot; paragraph 0113, discussing that the Scout Service may determine whether the automation score exceeds a threshold. For example, a task with an automation score that exceeds the threshold may be a good candidate for automation. Accordingly, Scout Service may proceed to automate the task if the automation score exceeds the threshold by performing act of generating software robot(s) to perform the task and act of executing the generated software robot(s)).
Kim does not explicitly teach obtaining information indicating stay time of a worker in each of a plurality of areas, the worker performing work in a workplace including the plurality of areas; and calculating work actual condition data indicating work time of the work performed in each of the plurality of areas based on the stay time. However, Trivelpiece in the analogous art of monitoring systems teaches these concepts. Trivelpiece teaches:
obtaining information indicating stay time of a worker in each of a plurality of areas, the worker performing work in a workplace including the plurality of areas (paragraph 0005, discussing a method of monitoring workers in a retail environment; paragraph 0006, discussing a system for monitoring workers in a retail environment.; (paragraph 0014, discussing systems and methods for estimating labor utilization metrics for a retail location. The disclosure provides a system that automatically generates an activity schedule for one or more employees that indicates the amount of time spent on various activities. The system may generate metrics for individual employees, groups of employees, or an entire staff; paragraph 0030, discussing that the laborevaluation application may include an employee tracker. The employee tracker may be configured to determine a location of a worker at a particular time. In an aspect, for example, the employee tracker may track workers starting from a known location. The employee tracker may use motion data and/or the video data to determine where the employee is at any time. For example, the employee tracker may use a location provided in the motion data and/or facial recognition of a worker in a particular video to determine the location of the worker. The employee tracker may analyze height, gender, age,…, or uniform of a worker to identify a specific employee and/or to distinguish workers from customers. For example, the employee tracker may re-identify a worker when the worker moves between zones or leaves the field of view of a camera. The location of workers may be used to determine the worker in a video when determining an activity being performed; paragraph 0037, discussing that the labor evaluation application may include a statistics component. The statistics component may determine labor utilization statistics based on the activity schedule for one or more workers. For example, the labor utilization statistics may include a percentage of time spent by a worker on each activity. The labor utilization statistics may include a total amount of time spent on each activity for one or more workers during a time period; the amount of time spent on various activities. The system may generate metrics for individual employees, groups of employees, or an entire staff; paragraph 0038, discussing that the labor utilization statistics may include a metric for a quality of work. For instance, the statistics component may correlate sales results to activities performed by workers. As another example, the labor evaluation system may also measure a customer traffic density, and a number of customers served may be correlated with the activities performed by workers. For instance the statistics component may determine what portion of time each worker spends on activities that are defined as appropriate for a zone where the worker is located); and
calculating work actual condition data indicating work time of the work performed in each of the plurality of areas based on the stay time (paragraph 0014, discussing systems and methods for estimating labor utilization metrics for a retail location. The disclosure provides a system that automatically generates an activity schedule for one or more employees that indicates the amount of time spent on various activities. The system may generate metrics for individual employees, groups of employees, or an entire staff; paragraph 0030, discussing that the labor evaluation application may include an employee tracker. The employee tracker may be configured to determine a location of a worker at a particular time. In an aspect, for example, the employee tracker may track workers starting from a known location. The employee tracker may use motion data and/or the video data to determine where the employee is at any time. For example, the employee tracker may use a location provided in the motion data and/or facial recognition of a worker in a particular video to determine the location of the worker. The employee tracker may analyze height, gender, age,…, or uniform of a worker to identify a specific employee and/or to distinguish workers from customers. For example, the employee tracker may re-identify a worker when the worker moves between zones or leaves the field of view of a camera. The location of workers may be used to determine the worker in a video when determining an activity being performed; paragraph 0037, discussing that the labor evaluation application may include a statistics component. The statistics component may determine labor utilization statistics based on the activity schedule for one or more workers. For example, the labor utilization statistics may include a percentage of time spent by a worker on each activity. The labor utilization statistics may include a total amount of time spent on each activity for one or more workers during a time period; paragraph 0038).
Kim is directed towards a system and method for monitoring employees. Trivelpiece describes methods and systems for monitoring workers in a retail environment. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards worker monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with Trivelpiece because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for worker monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (apparatus and an information processing method for processing information regarding work performed by a worker in a workplace), and because modifying Kim to include Trivelpiece’s features for obtaining information indicating stay time of a worker in each of a plurality of areas, the worker performing work in a workplace including the plurality of areas and calculating work actual condition data indicating work time of the work performed in each of the plurality of areas based on the stay time, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of generating a work plan that optimizes labor utilization (Trivelpiece at paragraph 0037); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 2, the Kim-Trivelpiece combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to perform: calculating the work actual condition data indicating the work time of each of the plurality of tasks in each predetermined time period (paragraph 0010, discussing identifying a length of time that the task is performed by the user and a monetary value of time of the user; paragraph 0059, determine how much time employees are spending on tasks, identifying manual and/or repetitive tasks which may be automated, and measuring effort (e.g., time) spent on certain tasks);
determining whether or not each of the plurality of tasks corresponds to the substitutable task, in each of a plurality of the time periods (paragraph 0061, discussing that the information regarding the particular tasks performed by employees may be used to track the time spent on particular projects and, thereby, inform management as to the true cost of a project…In other embodiments, the information may be employed to identify tasks that are frequently performed by employees and assess the economic viability of automating the task. For example, the cost of creating a software robot to perform the task may be compared with the cost of having employees perform the task. In yet other embodiments, the information may be employed to monitor the time required to perform a particular task; paragraph 0101, discussing an act of generating an automation score for identified task(s), an act of determining whether the automation score exceeds a threshold, an act of generating software robot(s) to perform task(s), and an act of executing the software robot(s); paragraph 0112, discussing that it should be appreciated that other values may be determined for particular tasks separate from an automation score. For example, Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot; paragraph 0113, discussing that the Scout Service may determine whether the automation score exceeds a threshold. For example, a task with an automation score that exceeds the threshold may be a good candidate for automation. Accordingly, Scout Service may proceed to automate the task if the automation score exceeds the threshold by performing act of generating software robot(s) to perform the task and act of executing the generated software robot(s); and
outputting the change information corresponding to a result of the determining (paragraph 0081, discussing a dashboard service that provides a visual representation of the information stored in the database. For example, the dashboard service may be a series of user interface screens…These user interface screens may be accessible over the internet…It should be appreciated that the Scout Service 103 may provide access to the data in the database through still yet other ways. For example, Scout Service may accept queries through a command-line interface (CLI), such as psql, or a graphical user interface (GUI); paragraph 0112, discussing that it should be appreciated that other values may be determined for particular tasks separate from an automation score. For example, Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot; paragraph 0113, discussing that the Scout Service may determine whether the automation score exceeds a threshold. For example, a task with an automation score that exceeds the threshold may be a good candidate for automation. Accordingly, Scout Service may proceed to automate the task if the automation score exceeds the threshold by performing act of generating software robot(s) to perform the task and act of executing the generated software robot(s)).
As per claim 3, the Kim-Trivelpiece combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the device includes at least one of a robot configured to perform the work and a device or a system used by the worker or a visitor of the workplace (paragraph 0101, discussing an act of generating an automation score for identified task(s), an act of determining whether the automation score exceeds a threshold, an act of generating software robot(s) to perform task(s), and an act of executing the software robot(s); paragraph 0112, discussing that it should be appreciated that other values may be determined for particular tasks separate from an automation score. For example, Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot; paragraph 0114, discussing that a Scout Service may generate a software robot that is configured to perform the task; paragraph 0113).
As per claim 5, the Kim-Trivelpiece combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the change information includes information indicating at least one of the task, the work time, the number of the workers, and the labor cost of the workers, which are reduced by introduction of the device (paragraph 0010, discussing generating a second metric associated with the task indicative of a cost savings of automating the task; paragraph 0112, discussing that it should be appreciated that other values may be determined for particular tasks separate from an automation score. For example, Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot).
As per claim 6, the Kim-Trivelpiece combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the change information includes a work schedule indicating the task and auxiliary task which needs to be performed by introduction of the device (paragraph 0007, discussing a system for identifying automatable tasks; paragraph 0037, discussing a method, performed by a computing device, for discovering automatable tasks; paragraph 0060, discussing that the identified tasks performed by one or more employees of a business may be automatically evaluated for automating using software. For example, the information collected may be employed to create software robot computer programs (hereinafter, “software robots”) that are configured to programmatically control one or more other computer programs to perform one or more tasks…For example, an automatable task may be identified from the collected computer usage data and a software developer may create a software robot to perform the automatable task…; paragraph 0101, discussing an act of generating an automation score for identified task(s), an act of determining whether the automation score exceeds a threshold, an act of generating software robot(s) to perform task(s); paragraph 0112, discussing that it should be appreciated that other values may be determined for particular tasks separate from an automation score. For example, Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot; paragraph 0113, discussing that the Scout Service may determine whether the automation score exceeds a threshold. For example, a task with an automation score that exceeds the threshold may be a good candidate for automation. Accordingly, Scout Service may proceed to automate the task if the automation score exceeds the threshold by performing act of generating software robot(s) to perform the task).
Claim 14 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 14 the Kim-Trivelpiece combination teaches an information processing method performed by a processer of an information processing apparatus having a storage device (Kim, paragraph 0014, discussing a method for discovering automatable tasks; paragraph 0003, discussing that the system includes at least one hardware processor, a display coupled to the at least one hardware processor and configured to display a user interface, and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform various functions; paragraph 0006, discussing that the system further comprises a random access memory; paragraph 0018, discussing that the system further comprises a volatile memory; paragraph 0075, discussing storing the collected information in the database).
26. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Trivelpiece, in further view of Berg et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0158268 A1, [hereinafter Berg].
As per claim 4, the Kim-Trivelpiece combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. While Kim describes wherein the change information includes information for contrasting work cost before introduction of the device with work cost after introduction of the device (paragraph 0112, discussing that it should be appreciated that other values may be determined for particular tasks separate from an automation score. For example, Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot; paragraph 0113, discussing that the Scout Service may determine whether the automation score exceeds a threshold. For example, a task with an automation score that exceeds the threshold may be a good candidate for automation. Accordingly, Scout Service may proceed to automate the task if the automation score exceeds the threshold by performing act of generating software robot(s) to perform the task and act of executing the generated software robot(s)), the Kim-Trivelpiece combination does not explicitly teach wherein the change information includes information for contrasting work time before introduction of the device with work time after introduction of the device. However, Berg in the analogous art of task management systems teaches this concept. Berg teaches:
wherein the change information includes information for contrasting work time before introduction of the device with work time after introduction of the device (paragraph 0027, discasing a UI for displaying costs and time involved in processes along with cost and time savings available through automation; paragraph 0142, discussing that the reduced work time indicates the monthly work time predicted after automation of the task using a bot...; paragraph 0156, discussing that data in the mined data table may have been collected using user behavior mining from a set of client devices, a data set, each element of the data set comprising a process instance identifier for a process instance comprising a task, a duration of time to perform the task by a user, and a number of interactions by the user in performing the task; paragraph 0177, discussing that based on the average durations of the tasks and the average hourly rates of the users performing the tasks, the process selection module selects a process of the plurality of processes. The selected process may be the process with the highest total cost, the process with the greatest savings from automation, the process with the greatest reduction in hours of time for a particular hourly rate or geographic region, or any suitable combination thereof; paragraph 0189, discussing that the process identification module determines for each task of the selected process, an amount of automation savings for the task…In some example embodiments, the amount of automation savings for each task is stored in a database).
The Kim-Trivelpiece combination describes features for monitoring employees. Berg describes systems and methods to automatically identify processes that benefit from process automation bots. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards worker monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Kim-Trivelpiece combination with Berg because the references are analogous art because they are booth directed to solutions for worker monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (apparatus and an information processing method for processing information regarding work performed by a worker in a workplace), and because modifying the Kim-Trivelpiece combination to include Berg’s feature for including wherein the change information includes information for contrasting work time before introduction of the device with work time after introduction of the device, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing additional opportunity for optimizing business processes and increasing user efficiency (Berg at paragraph 0096); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
27. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Trivelpiece, in further view of Thomas et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0225615 A1, [hereinafter Thomas].
As per claim 7, the Kim-Trivelpiece combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Kim-Trivelpiece combination, Thomas in the analogous art of monitoring systems teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to perform: outputting information indicating the number of the introduced devices, based on relationship between the work time of each of the plurality of tasks indicated by the work actual condition data and the substitutable task (paragraph 0040, discussing that the system can be used to evaluate performance of a store, a district, a region and/or a corporate view and/or can be used to measure the progress and efficiency of the stores and protocols implemented within the stores. In exemplary embodiments, the system can evaluate a customer experience based on the key performance indicator metrics. The key performance indicator metrics can be used to determine how stores reacted to understaffed or overstaffed situations and how such reactions or protocols can be improved. The collected POS terminal information can therefore be turned into useful statistics regarding performance of one or more stores. In some embodiments, the system can be used to evaluate an alternative system, such as a scheduling system for scheduling cashiers or staff. In some embodiments, the system can be programmed and/or configured to determine the key performance indicator metrics and an alternative system, such as a scheduling system for scheduling cashiers or staff, can be use the key performance indicator metrics to correct the overstaffed or understaffed situations. In some embodiments, the system can be programmed and/or configured to open or close a number of POS terminals; paragraph 0074, discussing that in some embodiments, the number of ideal registers opened as compared to the number of actual registers opened, e.g., the ROP, can be based on the processing time, e.g., the time spent servicing customers, divided by the time interval, e.g., 900 seconds for a fifteen minute interval, and multiplied by the ideal utilization goal value, e.g., 75 percent. The calculated value can further be rounded up to the nearest whole value. For example, if the calculated ROP value is 1.5, the ROP value can be rounded up to two since 1.5 registers cannot be opened. The ideal ROP value can represent the number of registers which should have been opened during a predetermined time interval with a specified ideal utilization goal value, e.g., 75 percent. The actual number of registers opened can then be compared to the number of registers which should have been opened to determine the over ideal ROP and under ideal ROP percentages which represent the over registered and under-registered percentages. The ideal number of registers opened can be calculated based on Equation 14 and the ROP value comparing the actual number of registers opened relative to the number of registers which should have been opened can be calculated based on Equation 15; paragraph 0113, discussing that the system may include any number of self-checkout terminals, where each the self-checkout termina includes a self-checkout application module in communicate with the server; claim 14: “A system for remotely monitoring utilization of geographically distributed point-of-sale terminals, comprising: geographically distributed point-of-sale terminals configured to perform transactions and collect and transmit point-of-sale data associated with the operation of each point-of-sale terminal to a remote server; the remote server storing the point-of-sale data for the geographically distributed point-of-sale terminals, the point-of-sale data including a quantity of point-of-sale terminals in operation during a specified time period for each geographic location at which at least one of the point-of-sale terminals is disposed and transaction data including transaction process times, customer arrival rates, and customer service rates collected at each of the point-of-sale terminals, the remote server configured to: receive the point-of-sale data from the geographically distributed point-of-sale terminals, cap the transaction process times by a preset time value to ensure accuracy of an estimated queue length and utilization value of the point-of-sale terminals, estimate the queue length value at the point-of-sale terminals for each of the geographic locations at which at least one point-of-sale terminal is disposed and for the specified period of time based on the point-of-sale data received from the point-of-sale terminals, estimate the utilization value of the point-of-sale terminals for each of the geographic locations at which at least one point-of-sale terminal is disposed and for the specified time period based on the point-of-sale data received from the point-of-sale terminals, determine whether the utilization value for each geographic location exceeds a utilization criteria and whether the queue length value for each geographic location exceeds a queue length criteria during a specific time interval, and in response to determining that the utilization value for at least one geographic location is less than the utilization criteria and the queue length value for at least one geographic location is greater than the queue length criteria, activate a quantity of point-of-sale terminals to be operated at the at least one geographic location during a subsequent time period to reduce queue lengths for the point-of-sale terminals at the at least one geographic location).
The Kim-Trivelpiece combination describes features for monitoring employees. Thomas describes a workplace monitoring system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards worker monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Kim-Trivelpiece combination with Thomas because the references are analogous art because they are booth directed to solutions for worker monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (apparatus and an information processing method for processing information regarding work performed by a worker in a workplace), and because modifying the Kim-Trivelpiece combination to include Thomas’ feature for including outputting information indicating the number of the introduced devices, based on relationship between the work time of each of the plurality of tasks indicated by the work actual condition data and the substitutable task, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of measuring the progress and efficiency of the stores and protocols implemented within the stores (Thomas at paragraph 0040); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 8, the Kim-Trivelpiece combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Kim, Trivelpiece in the analogous art of monitoring system teaches wherein the workplace includes a store where products to be purchased by a customer are displayed (paragraph 0005, discussing a method of monitoring workers in a retail environment; paragraph 0006, discussing a system for monitoring workers in a retail environment; paragraph 0014, discussing systems and methods for estimating labor utilization metrics for a retail location. The disclosure provides a system that automatically generates an activity schedule for one or more employees that indicates the amount of time spent on various activities. The system may generate metrics for individual employees, groups of employees, or an entire staff),
the control unit is further configured to perform: obtaining information indicating the number of customers in the store (paragraph 0026, discussing that the CPU may include one or more processors for executing instructions. An example of CPU can include, but is not limited to, any processor specially programmed, including a controller, microcontroller, application specific integrated circuit…; paragraph 0038, discussing that the labor utilization statistics may include a metric for a quality of work. For instance, the statistics component may correlate sales results to activities performed by workers. As another example, the labor evaluation system may also measure a customer traffic density, and a number of customers served may be correlated with the activities performed by workers. For instance the statistics component may determine what portion of time each worker spends on activities that are defined as appropriate for a zone where the worker is located).
Although not explicitly taught by the Kim-Trivelpiece combination, Thomas in the analogous art of monitoring systems teaches based on the work time in a settlement device for accepting settlement by the customer, and the number of the customers, outputting information indicating an amount which can be reduced in at least one of the work time in the settlement device, the number of workers, and labor cost of the workers (paragraph 0004, discussing systems and methods for remotely monitoring utilization of geographically distributed point-of-sale terminals and autonomously activating a quantity of point-of-sale terminals based on the utilization are disclosed. The system comprises geographically distributed point-of-sale terminals configured to perform transactions and collect and transmit point-of-sale data associated with the operation of each point-of-sale terminal to a remote server. The system further comprises the remote server storing the point-of-sale data for the geographically distributed point-of-sale terminals. The point-of-sale data includes a quantity of point-of-sale terminals in operation during a specified time period for each geographic location at which at least one of the point-of-sale terminals is disposed. Transaction data, including transaction process times, customer arrival rates, and customer service rates, is also collected at each of the point-of-sale terminals. The remote server receives the point-of-sale data from the geographically distributed point-of-sale terminals. The remote server caps the transaction process times by a preset time value to ensure accuracy of an estimated queue length and utilization value of the point-of-sale terminals. The remote server estimates the queue length value at the point-of-sale terminals for each of the geographic locations at which at least one point-of-sale terminal is disposed and for the specified period of time based on the point-of-sale data received from the point-of-sale terminals. The remote server estimates the utilization value of the point-of-sale terminals for each of the geographic locations at which at least one point-of-sale terminal is disposed and for the specified time period based on the point-of-sale data received from the point-of-sale terminals. The remote server determines whether the utilization value for each geographic location exceeds an utilization criteria and whether the queue length value for each geographic location exceeds a queue length criteria during a specific time interval. In response to determining that the utilization value for at least one geographic location is less than the utilization criteria and the queue length value for at least one geographic location is greater than the queue length criteria, the remote server adjusts a quantity of point-of-sale terminals to be operated at the at least one geographic location during a subsequent time period to reduce queue lengths for the point-of-sale terminals at the at least one geographic location and/or schedules more cashiers to open point-of-sale terminals based on the adjustment of the quantity of point-of-sale terminals; paragraph 0037, discussing that the system can be programmed and/or configured to determine and/or evaluate a performance of one or more stores, determine and/or evaluate an ideal utilization of point-of-sale (POS) terminals in the one or more stores, reduce queue wait times, and/or implement combinations thereof; paragraph 0115, discussing that the server can schedule more cashiers to the activated cashier operated terminal based on the adjustment of the quantity of cashier operated terminal to be operated at the at least one geographic location during a subsequent time period. In one embodiment, the server activates a cashier operated terminal and transmits a notification to a cashier to go to the activated cashier operated terminal to perform checkout functions. In some embodiments, the server may determine a specific cashier to assign to the activated cashier operated terminal. For example, the server may consider a service rate of each available cashier. Each cashier operated terminals may include an identifier such that the notified cashier is assigned to a particular cashier operated terminal. The server can be programmed and/or configured to determine whether to schedule more or less cashiers, e.g., whether to open or close cashier operated terminals to accommodate a number of current and/or expected customers).
The Kim-Trivelpiece combination describes features for monitoring employees. Thomas describes a workplace monitoring system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards worker monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Kim-Trivelpiece combination with Thomas because the references are analogous art because they are booth directed to solutions for worker monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (apparatus and an information processing method for processing information regarding work performed by a worker in a workplace), and because modifying the Kim-Trivelpiece combination to include Thomas’ feature for including based on the work time in a settlement device for accepting settlement by the customer, and the number of the customers, outputting information indicating an amount which can be reduced in at least one of the work time in the settlement device, the number of workers, and labor cost of the workers, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of measuring the progress and efficiency of the stores and protocols implemented within the stores (Thomas at paragraph 0040); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Tingler et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0257228 A1 – describes systems and methods for robotic assistance with retail location monitoring.
Kloor et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0331966 A1 – describes remotely performing common tasks using robotics in a natural environment.
Fairbanks et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0327011 A1 – describes employee time and proximity tracking.
Williams et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0402092 A1 – describes determining an average amount of time spent performing one or more activities by the employees of the plurality of employees based on the determined locations of the employees at the one or more times.
Liang et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0097467 A1 – describes tracking more granular operations parameters such as tasks completed by a given worker, time spent by a worker on certain tasks, or time spent on certain assignments.
Schmidt, Pub. No.: US 2007/0185754 A1 – describes a task responsibility system.
Kiran, Patent No.: US 12,109,015 B1 – describes a “substitution” step that pertains to replacing material or a process with another material or process that is considered to be less of a hazard. The motion data collected by the wearable device may be informative of how and if a tool or task can be substituted out for a tool or task that limits the unsafe motions occurring.
Humble, Patent No.: US 5,494,136 A – describes an integrated automated retail checkout terminal.
Ajunwa, Ifeoma. "Algorithms at work: productivity monitoring applications and wearable technology as the new data-centric research agenda for employment and labor law." . Louis ULJ 63 (2018): 21 – describes that productivity monitoring applications will prompt a reckoning of the balance between the employer's pecuniary interests in monitoring productivity and the employees' privacy interests.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights