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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 1/02/2026. Amendments received on 1/02/2026 have been entered. As per applicant claim 8 has been canceled. Accordingly claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shobu et al. (US Pub 2022/0019949) in view of Girolami et al. (US Pub 2021/0381643).
As of claims 1, 9 and 15, Shobu discloses a management system (via safety management assistance system) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (storage unit 21), and
at least one processor (via control unit 22) configured to execute the instructions to;
acquire information on work carried out by a mobile body and a time when the work is carried out (via dynamically acquiring information on work carried out by machine 20; see paragraphs [0088] and [0092])
specify a prohibited area which a person is not allowed to enter in accordance with the work (via setting a hazardous area being an off-limit area; see paragraphs [0033]- [0034], [0141] and [0145]); and
perform control for regulating the entry of a person into the specified prohibited area in accordance with the time when the work is carried out (via determining whether or not there is a hazardous area within the distance from a predicted position of the worker and the machine and sending a notification to the machine, worker and alarm 40; see paragraphs [0092], [0102] and [0105]-[0107]).
However, Shobu does not explicitly disclose that the control includes transmitting an instruction signal to a system that manages a door installed in a boundary between the prohibited area and a normal area that is not set as the prohibited area to cause the door to be locked.
Girolami discloses a management system wherien a control unit 41 detects when a machine (unwinder 1A, 1B) is operating and locks the door 33 in a boundary between the prohibited area (area inside the fencing 19) and a normal area (area outside the fencing 19; see figs. 2A and 2B; see paragraphs [0046], [0053] and [0058]).
From the teaching of Girolami it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Shobu to include the function of closing a door while a machine is operating in order to keep the workers safe.
As of claims 2, 10 and 16, Shobu discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify, in accordance with the time when the work is carried out, a control start time when the control is started, and the control means starts start the control from the specified control start time (In the system of Shobu the position of the worker to the machine and machine to the worker is continuously monitored and dangerous area is updated based on the positional relationship, distance is determined between the worker and the machine, so the safety management system will specify the time when the control (warning notification) needs to be started in order to timely notify the worker and the machine of a safety hazard; see paragraphs [0131], [0139], [0141] and [0161]).
As of claims 3, Shobu discloses that the control start time is set, based on the time when the work is carried out, a predetermined time before the time when the work is carried out (via disclosing that ISO 11161/ISO 12100 define safety standards to ensure safety of workers by prohibiting the workers from entering areas where the machines area in operation to isolate workers from the machines in terms of location or time, hence in these scenarios the control start time (prohibiting entry or notifying) is performed before the work is carried out; see paragraph [0002] and [0066]). Further in the system of Shobu, before the machine starts operation, if the safety management system 20 determines that the positional relationship of the worker and the machine is such that the worker might be in hazardous area of the machines, the safety management system 20 will notify the worker and the machine before the work is carried out by the machine; see paragraph [0092]).
As of claim 4, 11 and 17, Shobu discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify the prohibited area associated with the work based on the work (via setting/updating the hazardous area based on the work; see paragraph [0091] and [0105]).
As of claim 5, 12 and 18, Shobu discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire information indicating that a person is present in the prohibited area (via determining that the worker is in the hazardous area; see paragraph [0105] and [0205]), and change the time when the work is carried out in accordance with the information indicating that the person is present in the prohibited area (via stopping the work machine, since the work machine is stopped the time when the work is carried out is changed; see paragraph [0107]).
As of claim 6, 13 and 19 Shobu discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to transmit, to equipment installed near the prohibited area, a control signal for regulating entry of a person (via transmitting a control signal to alarm device 40; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0107]).
As of claims 7, 14 and 20, Shobu discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to turn on a lighting device installed near the prohibited area (via truing on warning lamp; see paragraph [0107]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights