DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed December 17, 2024. Claims 1–3 and 7–8 are amended; claim 6 is canceled; and claims 10–11 are newly added. Currently, claims 1–5 and 7–11 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
With respect to the previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. More particularly, Applicant’s remarks are directed to the amended claim elements, which are addressed for the first time herein. Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection asserted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1–5 and 7–11 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “revising the first value using a difference when the hazard is detected … the third value being set as a condition under which a hazard is detected”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hazard” in the first line of the “revising” step. Further, the claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “a hazard” to reference the previous recitation of “the hazard” or intends to introduce a second, different hazard.
Further, claims 1 and 8 recite “the performance” in the final line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “revising the first value using a difference when [[the]] a hazard is detected based on the difference, the difference being between the at least one second value and a third value, the third value being set as a condition under which [[a]] the hazard is detected during [[the]] performance of the first task.”
In view of the above, claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–5, 7, and 9–11, which depend from claims 1 and 8, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–5, 7, and 9–11 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recite the term “hazard” in the final line of the claim. However, as noted above, claim 1 previously recites “the hazard”. As a result, the scope of claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 3 to reference previous recitations or intends to introduce a second, different hazard.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the elements of claim 1, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “the condition under which [[of]] the hazard is detected”.
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 1–5 and 7–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–5 and 7–11 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements to “displaying a first work instruction and a safety instruction including a first value related to an article when a first worker performs a first task”; “calculating, based on a skeleton of the first worker, at least one second value selected from the group consisting of a value indicating physique and a value of center of gravity, the skeleton being detected from an image of the first task”; and “revising the first value using a difference when the hazard is detected based on the difference, the difference being between the at least one second value and a third value, the third value being set as a condition under which a hazard is detected during the performance of the first task.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for instructing a worker during performance of a task. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements recite observations, evaluations, or opinions that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. Finally, the step for “calculating” recites mathematical concepts because the element recites a mathematical calculation. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 8 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 8 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–5, 7, and 9–11 further describe the process for instructing a worker during performance of a task and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–5, 7, and 9–11 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a support device, one or more processors, and a memory storing instructions. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 8 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further includes a computer, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 8 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4–5 and 9 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an output device cause to display a user interface (claims 4–5) and a computer-readable storage medium (claim 9). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 4–5 and 9 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3, 7, and 10–11 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 7, and 10–11 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 7, and 10–11 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a support device, one or more processors, and a memory storing instructions. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 8 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further includes a computer, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 8 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4–5 and 9 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an output device cause to display a user interface (claims 4–5) and a computer-readable storage medium (claim 9). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 4–5 and 9 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3, 7, and 10–11 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 7, and 10–11 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 7, and 10–11 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–5 and 7–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1–3 and 7–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chestnut et al. (U.S. 2016/0307459) in view of YAMAMOTO et al. (U.S. 2017/0210017), and in further view of RADWIN et al. (U.S. 2021/0142048).
Claims 1 and 8–9: Chestnut discloses a support device (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 30) comprising:
one or more processors (See paragraph 40); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform (See paragraph 42)
displaying a first work instruction and a safety instruction including a first value related to an article when a first worker performs a first task (See FIG. 7–8 and paragraphs 80–81 and 85, wherein the system outputs work instructions, including task steps, and safety instructions, including a safety timer or a flashing glove image, and wherein the timer displays a value; see also paragraphs 61–66);
calculating at least one second value being detected from an image of the first task (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 80, wherein the system displays a safety timer in response to monitoring performance of the task using gesture recognition and object detection, and wherein the timer implicitly calculates a time remaining value); and
revising the first value using a difference, the difference being between the at least one second value and a third value, the third value being set as a condition under which a hazard is detected during the performance of the first task (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 80, wherein the system displays a safety timer, and wherein the displayed time remaining is a difference between the time spent performing the task and the hazard time value). Chestnut does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Yamamoto discloses calculating, based on a skeleton of the first worker, at least one second value selected from the group consisting of a value indicating physique, the skeleton being detected from an image of the first task (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 69–70, wherein a distance between the worker and the robot/hazard is calculated, and paragraphs 149–150, wherein position is detected using image analysis; see also paragraphs 20, 86–87, 97–98, and 126–129); and
revising the first value using a difference when the hazard is detected based on the difference, the difference being between the at least one second value and a third value, the third value being set as a condition under which a hazard is detected during the performance of the first task (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 69–70, wherein a distance between the worker and the robot/hazard is revised based on worker movement, and wherein visualized fence values are similarly revised; see also paragraphs 20, 86–87, 97–98, and 126–129).
Chestnut discloses a system directed to using a wearable device to manage task performance. Yamamoto discloses a system directed to generating a safety fence boundary based on a distance between a worker and a robot. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing an organization using wearable devices. The technique of calculating and revising hazard values is applicable to the system of Chestnut as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing an organization using wearable devices.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yamamoto would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Yamamoto to the teachings of Chestnut would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate organizational management using wearable devices into similar systems. Further, applying hazard values and revisions to Chestnut would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results. Chestnut and Yamamoto do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Radwin discloses calculating, based on a skeleton of the first worker, at least one second value selected from the group consisting of a value indicating physique and a value of center of gravity, the skeleton being detected from an image of the first task (See paragraphs 137 and 139–140, wherein a center of mass is calculated for the worker during performance of the task, and wherein the center of mass value is calculated based on worker and object positioning in an image).
As disclosed above, Chestnut discloses a system directed to using a wearable device to manage task performance, and Yamamoto discloses a system directed to generating a safety fence boundary based on a distance between a worker and a robot. Radwin discloses a system directed to assessing a worker position during performance of a task. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing an organization using wearable devices. The technique of calculating a center of gravity is applicable to the systems of Chestnut and Yamamoto as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing an organization using wearable devices.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Radwin would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Radwin to the teachings of Chestnut and Yamamoto would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate organizational management using wearable devices into similar systems. Further, applying center of gravity calculations to Chestnut and Yamamoto would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 8, Chestnut discloses a computer (See FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 9, Chestnut discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to execute the operations (See paragraph 8).
Claim 2: Chestnut discloses the support device according to claim 1, wherein when the hazard is detected, a warning is output regardless of a worker performing the first task (See FIG. 7–8 and paragraphs 80–81, wherein the system outputs safety alerts when safety procedures are not followed; see also paragraphs 61–66).
Claim 3: Chestnut discloses the support device according to claim 2, wherein a spatial model and the image are used to calculate an attribute related to an item in the image, the attribute including the second value, the item being at least one item selected from a physique, a pose, and a center of gravity of the first worker, the item being defined in the spatial model (See paragraphs 80–81 and 83, wherein a gesture algorithm, in combination with image analysis, determines poses, movements, and locations of the worker in the work environment, and wherein timing hazard attributes are calculated and monitored), and
the hazard is detected using the calculated attribute and a hazard detection model, the condition of hazard being defined in the hazard detection model (See paragraphs 80 and 83, in view of FIG. 8 and paragraph 81, wherein object detection algorithms are used in combination with the gesture algorithm to detect objects and hazards within the work environment, and wherein timing hazards are identified; see also paragraphs 61–66).
Claim 7: Chestnut discloses the support device according to claim 1, wherein the revised safety instruction is output when the first worker is performing a next first task (See FIG. 7–8 and paragraphs 80–81, in view of paragraph 85, wherein future safety instructions are personalized according to worker actions and worker performance history; see also paragraphs 61–66).
Claims 10–11: Chestnut discloses the support device according to claim 1, wherein when a second worker performs the first task, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform outputting the first work instruction and not outputting the safety instruction, or outputting the first work instruction and outputting another safety instruction (See FIG. 7–8 and paragraphs 80–81, in view of paragraphs 83–85 and 90, wherein safety instructions are personalized according to worker actions and worker performance history, such that additional safety reminder instructions are displayed to workers who need follow up guidance; see also paragraphs 61–66).
Claims 4–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chestnut et al. (U.S. 2016/0307459) in view of YAMAMOTO et al. (U.S. 2017/0210017), and in further view of RADWIN et al. (U.S. 2021/0142048) and Glenn, III et al. (U.S. 2016/0300389).
Claim 4: As disclosed above, Chestnut, Yamamoto, and Radwin disclose the elements of claims 1–3. Although Chestnut discloses an output device is caused to display a user interface (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 41, wherein the display provides an interface) and the spatial model (See citations above), Chestnut, Yamamoto, and Radwin and do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Glenn discloses wherein an output device is caused to display a first user interface for editing the model, and in the first user interface, a first item can be selected, and an attribute of the selected first item can be accepted (See paragraph 94, wherein the surveyor device generates an interface to receive user corrections to model positions).
As disclosed above, Chestnut discloses a system directed to using a wearable device to manage task performance, Yamamoto discloses a system directed to generating a safety fence boundary based on a distance between a worker and a robot, and Radwin discloses a system directed to assessing a worker position during performance of a task. Glenn discloses a system directed to using a wearable device to manage a building and an associated building model. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing an organization using wearable devices. The technique of displaying an interface that accepts inputs is applicable to the systems of Chestnut, Yamamoto, and Radwin as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing an organization using wearable devices.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Glenn would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Glenn to the teachings of Chestnut, Yamamoto, and Radwin would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate organizational management using wearable devices into similar systems. Further, applying an interface that accepts inputs to Chestnut, Yamamoto, and Radwin would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claim 5: Although Chestnut discloses an output device is caused to display a user interface (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 41, wherein the display provides an interface) and the hazard detection model (See citations above), Chestnut does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Glenn discloses wherein an output device is caused to display a second user interface for editing the model, and in the second user interface, a second item can be selected, and an attribute of the selected second item can be accepted (See paragraph 94, wherein the surveyor device generates an interface to receive user corrections to model positions).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Glenn would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 4.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Teich et al. (U.S. 2015/0085133) discloses a system directed to generating location-specific alerts using a wearable device with imaging analysis; and
Galera et al. (EP 3,482,887) discloses a system directed to generating a safety zone on an augmented reality overlay.
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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623