DETAILED ACTION
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 1-13 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-13 and 20-26 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a machine since the claim is directed to a processing device.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of measure a plurality of coordinates of a hand respectively in a plurality of images [data acquisition/observation which is a mental process]; calculate a center coordinate of a rotation of the first tool by using the plurality of coordinates [mathematical concept] are directed to an abstract.
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No.
The additional claim limitations the hand being consecutively visible in the plurality of images, the hand turning a screw by using a first tool doesn’t requires the calculated center coordinate to be used for controlling the tool.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The processing device, the examiner interprets that the Claim does not amount to significantly more because nothing in the claim requires a specialized processor or particular hardware architecture.
The Examiner finds that Claims 2-13 and 20-26 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps of analyzing image using a processing device.
Thus, claims 1-13 and 20-26 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0326096) in view of Howenstein et. al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0331057).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshii teaches a processing device (processing device 10), configured to: measure a plurality of coordinates (positions of the joints) of a hand respectively in a plurality of images [Para. 26; Para. 42 “The positions of the joints of the worker W are obtained by estimating the skeleton. ”; and Para. 44 and Para. 47 “the processing device 10 detects the tips of the fingers and multiple joints including joints of the hand other than the tips of the fingers.”], the hand being consecutively visible in the plurality of images [Para. 47 “the processing device 10 detects the tips of the fingers and multiple joints including joints of the hand other than the tips of the fingers”; Para. 26 “The processing device 10 processes various data. The processing device 10 also controls the display of the display device 20. The display device 20 displays information to a user. The imaging device 30 images the appearance of the task and repeatedly acquires images. The imaging device 30 may acquire a video image.”, it’s clear that the object/hand is visible in the consecutive frames/images], the hand turning a screw (screw-tightening) by using (operating) a first tool [Para. 103]; and
Yoshii doesn’t explicitly teach calculating a center coordinate of a rotation of the first tool by using the plurality of coordinates.
Howenstein teaches calculating a center coordinate of a rotation (center of rotation) of the first tool (bat) by using the plurality of coordinates (hand positions) [Para. 121 and 141].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yashii’s wrench-based screw tightening processing by incorporating Howenstein’s teaching of calculating (calculated) a center coordinate of a rotation (center of rotation) of a first tool (bat) by using (using) plurality of coordinates (hand positions) applying the circumcenter calculation to the successive hand positions along Yoshii’s disclosed arc like hand motion while the wrench rotates. The medication improves Yoshi by converting the observed arc like hand motion into a wrench rotation center estimate, thereby enabling direct localization of the screw/tool rotation point.
Regarding claim 20, Yoshii doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Howenstein teaches wherein the plurality of coordinates (position of the hands at three points in the swing) are selected from coordinates obtained while the hand is moving along an arc (arc traced by the hands) [Para. 74].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yashii’s wrench-based screw tightening processing by incorporating Howenstein’s teaching of calculating (calculated) a center coordinate of a rotation (center of rotation) of a first tool (bat) by using (using) plurality of coordinates (hand positions) applying the circumcenter calculation to the successive hand positions along Yoshii’s disclosed arc like hand motion while the wrench rotates. The medication improves Yoshi by converting the observed arc like hand motion into a wrench rotation center estimate, thereby enabling direct localization of the screw/tool rotation point.
Regarding claim 21, Yoshii doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Howenstein teaches wherein the plurality of coordinates (trajectory of the hand position) include coordinates obtained at a timing (hand positions at these times) at which a detected value (gyroscope value from the sensor) is received (receive a time series of inertial sensor data) from the first tool [Para. 26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yashii’s wrench-based screw tightening processing by incorporating Howenstein’s teaching of calculating (calculated) a center coordinate of a rotation (center of rotation) of a first tool (bat) by using (using) plurality of coordinates (hand positions) applying the circumcenter calculation to the successive hand positions along Yoshii’s disclosed arc like hand motion while the wrench rotates. The medication improves Yoshi by converting the observed arc like hand motion into a wrench rotation center estimate, thereby enabling direct localization of the screw/tool rotation point.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0326096) in view of Howenstein et. al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0331057) further in view of Tamura et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0066295).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshii in view of Howenstein doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Tamura teaches extract four coordinates (points on the surface of the sphere) from the plurality of coordinates [Para. 61, and 48-49]; and calculate a coordinate of a center of a sphere passing through the four coordinates as the center coordinate [Para. 54, 55, and 62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yashii’s image based screw tightening processing device, modified by Howenstein, by incorporating Hopp’s teachinf of grouping seasured point into four point sets and using those four points to calculate a sphere center, such that four of Yosshi’s measured hand coordinate are used to determine the center coordinate, which improves Yossi by providing three dimensional geometric calculation.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0326096) in view of Howenstein et. al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0331057) further in view of Stentenbach et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0042689).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshii in view of Howenstein doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Stentenbach teaches extract a plurality of combinations (lines s1 and s2) from the plurality of coordinates (p1, p2, p3), each of the plurality of combinations including two coordinates (p1p2 and p2p3) [Para. 45]; generate (calculated) a perpendicular bisector (perpendicular bisectors A and B) between the two coordinates (P1P2; P2P3) for each of the combinations [Para. 45 and 46]; and calculate a coordinate (x and y) of an intersection of the plurality of perpendicular bisectors as the center coordinate [Para. 44, 56 and 57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yashii’s image based screw tightening processing device, modified by Howenstein, by incorporating Stentenbach’s teaching of selecting coordinates pairs to improve Yashii by providing direct geometric technique for calculating the rotation center from measured coordinates, enabling the center of the hand’s arc like motion to be determined mathematically.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshii in view of Howenstein doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Stentenbach further configured to: extract three coordinates from the plurality of coordinates [Para. 45-49, fig. 1, 3 and related description]; and calculate a circumcenter of the three coordinates as the center coordinate [Para. 45-49, fig. 1, 3 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yashii’s image based screw tightening processing device, modified by Howenstein, by incorporating Stentenbach’s teaching of selecting coordinates pairs to improve Yashii by providing direct geometric technique for calculating the rotation center from measured coordinates, enabling the center of the hand’s arc like motion to be determined mathematically.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0326096) in view of Howenstein et. al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0331057).
Regarding claim 26 Yashii in view of Howenstein discloses the claimed invention, as stated in claim 1 rejection above, except for repeatedly measuring and calculating center coordinate in different time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform Yashii’s teaching repeatedly, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
obtained at different times.
Note: Claims 2-7, 11, 12, 13, 22-25 would be allowable if the 101 rejection is overcome and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights