DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-3 and 6-7 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non- Final Rejection, Applicant amended claims and cancelled claims 4-5. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged. Applicants amended claims and further in view of the arguments has overcome the need for a 102/103 Rejection and is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that claims recites a plurality of sensors, acquiring sensor data…, recognize a work step by applying sensor data and as such are not Mental Processes and are inextricably tied to computer and sensor technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation which could include a human to manually perform the steps of (using generating, etc.) a work model library, generating an execution model, recognizing a work step, cancelling a selection of an execution model, updating the execution model, and outputting data. The cited limitations are each additional elements such as sensors, acquiring sensor data, etc. are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner further notes that recognizing a work step by applying sensor data further narrow the abstract idea as a human could interpret the acquired sensor data mentally and further reference a recognition model which could include a model written via pen and paper.
Applicant contends that just because a human is being monitored does not imply that a system is directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity.
Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive. The claims are directed towards “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards providing work support information in real time. (See Specification, [04]).
Applicant contends that claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application further pointing to the Specification and specific limitations such as generate an execution model…, work component recognition models…., and update execution models…. by intelligently filtering which models receive sensor data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited steps are all abstract ideas, at least mental processes, as a human could generate models (work and execution), and further updating models via pen and paper. The cited elements do not indicate any additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner further notes a human could look at sensors to acquire and interpret data to further use in the cited models.
Applicant further points to Enfish… asserting the claims are directed towards an improvement in existing technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not match the fact pattern of the cited case. Enfish is directed towards methods and apparatuses for storing and retrieving data using assertedly improved database techniques through use of a self-referential table while the present claims are directed towards the methods for managing labor for a workforce while the present application is directed towards a work recognition model, receiving production instructions, generate an execution model, recognize a work step, and updating an execution model.
Applicant contends that unlike a case that merely an inherent result of automating a manual task, the present claims improve dynamic filtering and excluding complex models to reduce memory and processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as improved speed is an inherent quality of applying an abstract idea to a computing device. (MPEP 2106.05f - Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363). The claims do not recite an additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, (additional elements bolded)
A work recognition system for monitoring execution of a manufacturing process using a plurality of work component recognition models, the work recognition system comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to acquire information on movement, touch, hearing, position, camera images, and an equipment state during a time when work is performed by a worker,
a work recognition model library storing the plurality of work component recognition models corresponding to respective work steps of a manufacturing process,
at least one processor programmed to:
receive a production instruction from a production management system;
generate an execution model set by selecting, from the work recognition model library, work component recognition models corresponding to a product specified in the production instruction;
acquire sensor data from the plurality of sensors during execution of a work process;
recognize a work step by applying the sensor data to at least one work component recognition model included in the execution model set;
when the work step is not recognized, cancel at least part of the selection of the execution model set and perform the work recognition again using an expanded model set;
update the execution model set by excluding work component recognition models corresponding to work steps determined to be completed based on progress of the manufacturing process; and
output work-specific work performance data indicative of the recognized work step.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7;
A work recognition method for monitoring execution of a manufacturing process using a plurality of work component recognition models/ A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for monitoring execution of a manufacturing process using a plurality of work component recognition models by causing an information processing apparatus to execute steps comprising:
controlling a plurality of sensors to acquire information on movement, touch, hearing, position, camera images, and an equipment state during a time when work is performed by a worker;
storing a work recognition model library that stores the plurality of work component recognition models corresponding to respective work steps of a manufacturing process;
receiving a production instruction from a production management system;
generating an execution model set by selecting, from the work recognition model library, work component recognition models corresponding to a product specified in the production instruction;
acquiring sensor data from the plurality of sensors during execution of a work process;
recognizing a work step by applying the sensor data to at least one work component recognition model included in the execution model set;
when the work step is not recognized, canceling at least part of the selection of the execution model set and performing the work recognition again using an expanded model set;
updating the execution model set by excluding work component recognition models corresponding to work steps determined to be completed based on progress of the manufacturing process; and
outputting work-specific work performance data indicative of the recognized work step.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards a work model library, generating an execution model, recognizing a work step, cancelling a selection of an execution model, updating the execution model, and outputting data all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards providing work support information in real time. (See Specification, [04]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-3, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
Claims 1-3 and 6-7, though directed to non-statutory subject matter, are deemed to define over the currently known prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103. Examiner interprets based upon the claim limitations that there is no currently known prior art that discloses the features relating to: “a plurality of sensors configured to acquire information on movement, touch, hearing, position, camera images, and an equipment state during a time when work is performed by a worker, a work recognition model library storing the plurality of work component recognition models corresponding to respective work steps of a manufacturing process, at least one processor programmed to: receive a production instruction from a production management system; generate an execution model set by selecting, from the work recognition model library, work component recognition models corresponding to a product specified in the production instruction; acquire sensor data from the plurality of sensors during execution of a work process; recognize a work step by applying the sensor data to at least one work component recognition model included in the execution model set; when the work step is not recognized, cancel at least part of the selection of the execution model set and perform the work recognition again using an expanded model set; update the execution model set by excluding work component recognition models corresponding to work steps determined to be completed based on progress of the manufacturing process; and output work-specific work performance data indicative of the recognized work step.”
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-7 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Known Prior Art (patent)
US 20210133444 A1
WORK RECOGNITION APPARATUS
US 20180150783 A1
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING TASK COMPLETION OF A TIME PERIOD BASED ON TASK COMPLETION RATES AND DATA TREND OF PRIOR TIME PERIODS IN VIEW OF ATTRIBUTES OF TASKS USING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS
US 20220350315 A1
Method, Apparatus, Electronic Device, Medium, and Program Product for Monitoring Status of Production Order
US 20200117490 A1
Interface for Generating Models with Customizable Interface Configurations
US 20150339572 A1
SYSTEMS AND TECHNIQUES FOR PREDICTIVE DATA ANALYTICS
US 20180060738 A1
SYSTEMS AND TECHNIQUES FOR DETERMINING THE PREDICTIVE VALUE OF A FEATURE
US 20150007181 A1
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SELECTING TASK TEMPLATES
US 20110289041 A1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING ASSIGNMENT TEMPLATES
US 20040204971 A1
Method and system for creating and managing engineered time standards
US 20180144277 A1
DATA-FEEDBACK LOOP FROM PRODUCT LIFECYCLE INTO DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING
Known Prior Art (NPL)
WO2023176393A1
Recognition device, recognition processing method, and program
Known Prior Art (foreign)
Sang GM, Xu L, de Vrieze P. A Predictive Maintenance Model for Flexible Manufacturing in the Context of Industry 4.0. Front Big Data. 2021 Aug 25;4:663466.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights