DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Application No. JP2024-007157 filed on 01/22/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2024 and 02/24/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for informalities, lack of antecedent support, or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 1, line 10: replace “an image of a state” with “the image of the state”
Claim 1, line 12, replace “a state” with “the state”
Claim 2, line 1, replace “a state” with “the state”
Claim 4, line 5, replace “the set time” with “the predetermined set time”
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Referring to independent claim 1, this claim recites the claim limitations an “an image capture part”, “a wearing determination part”, “a learning model generation part”, “an acquisition part”, “a prediction part” and “a decision part”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraph [0025], the “image capture part” will be construed as a CCD camera or the like. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraph [0027], the “wearing determination part” will be construed as a configured microprocessor. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraph [0038], the “learning model generation part” will be construed as a machine learning model, such as a neural network. As there is no sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function as described in paragraph [0039] and FIG. 5, the “acquisition part” will be construed as a software. As there is no sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function as described in paragraph [0040] and FIG. 5, the “prediction part” will be construed as a software. As there is no sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function, as described in paragraph [0041] and FIG. 5, the “decision part” will be construed as a software.
In addition, claim 3 recites the claim limitation “a warning part” and “a vehicle control part”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraph [0028], the “warning part” will be construed as a lamp, a buzzer, or the like to warn a person. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraph [0029], the “vehicle control part” will be construed as a configured microprocessor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 1-4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitations, the “acquisition part”, the “prediction part” and the “decision part”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, for each of the limitations, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification describes in paragraph [0039]-[0041] and FIG. 5 the functions of the limitations. However, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the functions. The use of the term the “acquisition part”, the “prediction part” or the “decision part” is not adequate structure for performing the acquiring, predicting or determining of because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structures perform(s) the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4 are dependent claims of claim 1. The claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of acquiring, predicting and determining. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4 are dependent claims of claim 1. The claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and therefore, claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 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 2A, Prong One)
Independent claim 1 recites, “a wearing determination part, determining whether the operator is wearing the belt, the wearing determination part”, “a prediction part, predicting a state of the operator and the belt by inputting the image at the current time point acquired from the acquisition part into the learning model generated in the learning model generation part” and “a decision part, determining whether to warn the operator based on the prediction part”.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraph [0027], for instance, the determining function is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on a captured image. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraph [0040], for instance, the predicting function is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on acquired data or image. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraph [0041], for instance, the determining whether to warn function is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on a predicted data.That is, other than reciting a “determination part”, a “prediction part”, and a “decision part” (a generic electronic device or generic computer component), a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of, “a belt, configured to be worn by the operator”, “an image capture part, capturing an image of the driver’s cab”, “a collection part, collecting an image of a state of the operator and the belt”, “a learning model generation part, generating and storing a learning model through machine learning”, “an acquisition part, acquiring an image of a state of the operator and the belt at a current time point by the image capture part”.
The additional limitations “a belt, configured to be worn by the operator”, “a learning model generation part, generating and storing a learning model through machine learning” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for determining, predicting and determining as recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Each of the additional limitations of “an image capture part, capturing an image of the driver’s cab”, “a collection part, collecting an image of a state of the operator and the belt” and “an acquisition part, acquiring an image of a state of the operator and the belt at a current time point by the image capture part” is an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
(Step 2B)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional features including “a belt, configured to be worn by the operator”, “an image capture part, capturing an image of the driver’s cab”, “a collection part, collecting an image of a state of the operator and the belt”, “a learning model generation part, generating and storing a learning model through machine learning”, “an acquisition part, acquiring an image of a state of the operator and the belt at a current time point by the image capture part”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitation may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more.
The capturing, collecting and acquiring image functions represent a function that is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, as demonstrated in FURUKURA (JP 2014144865 A) Page 3 third paragraph (“Preferably, the image pickup means can pick up images other than the cab, and when the image processing means determines that the operator wearing the belt is outside the area of the cab from the image taken by the image pickup means, the vehicle control means Warns the operator by disabling the traveling system for traveling the picking forklift and the lifting system for lifting the cab.”), PREVOT et al. (US 2024/0024712 A1) paragraph [0059] (“In various embodiments, the image processing circuitry 146 may send and/or receive imaging data captured by the imaging device 130 and/or corresponding data associated therewith generated in a supported format by the image processing circuitry 146 to and/or from the imaging device data repository 107.”), and MOLINEK et al. (US 2023/0316758) paragraph [0031] (“In various embodiments, a workspace operating condition detection apparatus 100 may comprise an imaging device 110 configured to capture imaging data associated with the fall protection device 20 and/or the workspace 11 and a controller 120 in communication with the imaging device 110 and configured to detect a workspace operating condition based at least in part on imaging data received from the imaging device 110. In various embodiments, the imaging device 110 may be configured to capture imaging data comprising at least one image that, individually and/or collectively, shows each of the connection locations that define the installation configuration of the fall protection device 20”)
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claims 1.
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further recite general recitation of applying the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully submits that the dependent claim 4 is patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUKURA (JP 2014144865 A) (“Furukura”), in view of PREVOT et al. (US 2024/0024712 A1) (“Prevot”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Furukura teaches:
A safety device, configured to prevent an operator in a driver’s cab of a picking lift from falling, comprising: (Furukura: Page 2, first paragraph “The present invention relates to a safety device that prevents an operator boarding a cab of a picking forklift from falling from the cab, and a picking forklift equipped with the safety device.”)
a belt, configured to be worn by the operator; an image capture part, capturing an image of the driver’s cab; and a wearing determination part, determining whether the operator is wearing the belt, the wearing determination part comprising: an acquisition part, acquiring an image of a state of the operator and the belt at a current time point by the image capture part; (Furukura: Page 2, third paragraph from the bottom “In order to solve the above problems, a safety device according to the present invention is a safety device that prevents an operator who rides on a cab of a picking forklift from falling from the cab. A belt to be attached to the operator, a safety belt connecting the driver's cab and the belt, an attachment state determination means for determining whether or not the belt is attached to the operator, and a belt not attached state by the attachment state determination means Vehicle control means for controlling the picking forklift so as to warn the operator when it is determined that The wearing state determination means includes a first recognition information attached to the front side for recognizing the front side of the belt, and a second recognition information attached to the back side for recognizing the back side of the belt, which is different from the first recognition information. First information and second recognition information are detected by processing the recognition information, the image pickup means for picking up the driver's cab, the image picked up by the image pickup means, and the belt is attached or not attached based on the detection result Image processing means for determining whether it is in a state, The image processing means detects the first recognition information and does not detect the second recognition information, determines that the belt is in the worn state, and detects the second recognition information, or the first recognition information. When both the information and the second recognition information are not detected, it is determined that the belt is not attached.”) (Furukura: Page 3, third to fifth paragraph “Preferably, the image pickup means can pick up images other than the cab, and when the image processing means determines that the operator wearing the belt is outside the area of the cab from the image taken by the image pickup means, the vehicle control means Warns the operator by disabling the traveling system for traveling the picking forklift and the lifting system for lifting the cab. In order to solve the above problems, a picking forklift according to the present invention includes the above-described safety device. The present invention reliably detects that the operator is not wearing a belt by image processing of a captured image captured by a camera. When the operator does not wear the belt, a warning is given to the operator such as disabling the traveling system or operating a warning lamp.”) (Furukura: Page 6, third paragraph “Once wearing of the belt 12 is confirmed and the forklift 1 is operated, the safety device determines whether or not the belt 12 is attached at a predetermined interval (for example, every 5 minutes), and based on the determination result as described above. The operation state of the forklift 1 is controlled.”) [The process at the predetermined interval point in time reads on “at the current time point”.]
a prediction part, predicting a state of the operator and the belt by inputting the image at the current time point acquired from the acquisition part into the learning model generated in the learning model generation part; and a decision part, determining whether to warn the operator based on the prediction part. (Furukura: Page 3, third to fifth paragraph as discussed above) (Furukara: Page 4, fourth paragraph “The image processing device 17 performs predetermined image processing on the captured image captured by the camera 16, and the first recognition information on the front side 12a of the belt 12 and the second recognition information on the back side 12b reflected in the captured image. Is detected. That is, since the recognition information is color in this embodiment, the image processing device 17 performs color recognition processing to detect red on the front side 12a and blue on the back side 12b. If the color of the front side 12a and the back side 12b of the belt 12 is the same as or similar to the color of the driver's cab 4 or the color of the work clothes of the operator O, the image processing device 17 may be erroneously detected. In this case, it is preferable to use the belt 12 of FIGS. 5A to 5C to which patterns and characters are attached. The image processing device 17 performs a pattern recognition process when the recognition information is a pattern as shown in FIG. 5A, and performs a color recognition process and a pattern recognition process when the recognition information is a color and a pattern as shown in FIG. 5B. As described above, in the case of a color and a character, color recognition processing and character recognition processing are performed to detect first recognition information and second recognition information.”) [Using the pattern recognition of the status of the belt of the operator reads on “predicting a state of the operator and the belt”. The image provided to the pattern recognition process reads on “inputting the image … into the learning model”. Determining when the operator is not wearing the belt to warn the operator reads on “determining whether to warn …”.]
Furukura does not expressly teach: a collection part, collecting an image of a state of the operator and the belt; a learning model generation part, generating and storing a learning model through machine learning.
Prevot teaches:
a collection part, collecting an image of a state of the operator and the belt; a learning model generation part, generating and storing a learning model through machine learning. (Prevot: [0067] “In various embodiments, an exemplary mounting device 100 may be configured with, or in communication with, an imaging device data repository 107. The imaging device data repository 107 may be stored, at least partially on the memory 141 of the system. In some embodiments, the imaging device data repository 107 may be remote from, but in connection with, the mounting device 100. The imaging device data repository 107 may contain information, such as images relating to one or more materials handling vehicles (e.g., workspaces), fall protection devices, fastening/attachment means, webbing types, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the mounting device 100 may also use machine learning for detecting one or more conditions, configurations, and/or the like associated with a fall protection device in order to facilitate the detection of a connection condition associated with the fall protection device, such that the mounting device 100 may use a reference database, such as the imaging device data repository 107, to initially train the mounting device 100 and then may be configured to detect a connection condition without referencing the imaging device data repository 107 or other reference databases. For example, in various embodiments, a controller 140 may be configured to execute a feedback loop, wherein one or more imaging data, device movement data, corresponding connected configurations, and/or determined characteristics (e.g., characteristics associated with an operator, a fall protection device, and/or a materials handling vehicle) associated with the sensor data captured by the sensing devices may define one or more inputs into a machine learning model in order to increase a rate of machine learning associated with the one or more machine learning techniques, as described herein.”) [Having the repository of the images reads on “collecting an image …”. Training the machine learning of the mounting device reads on “generating and storing a learning model”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Furukura and Prevot before them, to modify the use of pattern recognition process using images, to incorporate machine learning model.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for using historical data to train machine learning for the pattern recognition of various characteristics from the images. (Prevot: [0067])
Regarding claim 3, Furukura and Prevot teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Furukura further teaches:
A picking lift, comprising: the safety device according to claim 1; a warning part, configured to warn the operator to wear the belt; and a vehicle control part, controlling the warning part. (Furukura: FIG. 1) (Furukura: Page 6 second paragraph “If the image processing device 17 determines that the belt 12 is not attached, the image processing device 17 does not transmit an operable signal to the vehicle control device 18. When the vehicle control device 18 does not receive the operable signal, the vehicle control device 18 disables the traveling system 20 and the lifting system 21. Therefore, even if the operator O operates the operation unit 9 and the brake pedal 11, the forklift 1 does not travel and the cab 4 does not move up and down. Thus, the vehicle control device 18 warns the operator O by disabling the traveling system 20 and the lifting system 21 and prompts the belt 12 to be attached. Further, when the belt 12 is not attached, the vehicle control device 18 may warn the operator O by operating the warning lamp 22 or the alarm buzzer 23 and prompt the user to attach the belt 12. Note that the image processing device 17 may record the state of the cab 4 when the belt 12 is not attached so that the administrator can manage the operator O.”) [See the picking forklift 1, as illustrated in FIG. 1.]
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukura, in view of Prevot, further in view of GAO et al. (CN 113119906 A) (“Gao”).
Regarding claim 2, Furukura and Prevot teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Furukura and Prevot do not expressly teach the recitations of claim 2.
Gao teaches:
wherein a state of the operator and the belt comprises a state in which the operator is in a process of wearing the belt. (Gao: Page 4, line 4 to seventh line from the bottom “Optionally, the seat belt controller is configured to control the operation of the height adjuster according to the difference between F1, F2, F3, and to control the operation of the retractor according to the magnitude relationship between F1, F2, F3 and the comfort pressure range limit value, wherein F1, F2, and F3 are sequentially respectively the measurement value of the first flexible force sensor, the measurement value of the second flexible force sensor, and the measurement value of the third flexible force sensor. … Optionally, the step of adjusting the height adjuster and/or the retractor according to F1, F2 and F3 comprises: … ; determining that the seat belt is in a wearing state when all of F1, F2, and F3 are greater than or equal to the first set value.”) [The steps to get to the wearing state when all of F1, F2, and F3 are greater than or equal to the first set value reads on “… in a process of wearing the belt”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Furukura, Prevot and Gao before them, to modify the system that determines the wearing status of the safety belt of the operator of the picking forklift, to incorporate confirming that the operator is wearing the safety belt by processing wearing steps to ensure the wearing process is completed properly.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for ensuring that the belt is worn properly for both safety and comfort of the operator. (Gao: Page 5, first full paragraph “Furthermore, the invention executes the action of tightening or loosening the safety belt after comparing each pressure value with the limit value set in the early stage, so that the pressing force of the safety belt on the passenger is maintained in a stable and comfortable interval. And the height of the safety belt is adjusted according to the difference value between the pressure values, so that the safety belt is prevented from slipping on the shoulder and tightening the neck, the safety belt is prevented from being worn on the body of a passenger at the correct height, and the comfort of the passenger is further ensured.”)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights