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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 08/30/2024 and 04/20/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. Thiscommunication is the first action on the merits.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“a total task time acquisition unit”, “a reference time acquisition unit”, “a task time calculation unit”, “a break setting unit”, “and an output unit” in Claim 1.
In light of [0029-0030], “Fig. 3 is a block diagram showing hardware structures of the work recognition device 20 according to the present exemplary embodiment. As shown in Fig. 3, the work recognition device 20 is equipped with a controller 21. The controller 21 is structured by equipment including an ordinary computer. As shown in Fig. 3, the controller 21 is provided with a central processing unit (CPU) 21A, read-only memory (ROM) 21B, random access memory (RAM) 21C and an input/output interface (I/O) 21D. The CPU 21A, ROM 21B, RAM 21C and input/output interface 21 D are connected to one another via a bus 21 E. The bus 21 E includes a control bus, an address bus and a data bus”, we understand these generic units to be logical routines executed by the generic processor.
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 § 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A work recognition device, comprising:a total task time acquisition unit that acquires a total task time of a series of tasks performed by a worker; a reference time information acquisition unit that acquires reference time information relating to reference times of respective tasks of the series of tasks; a task time calculation unit that calculates task times of the respective tasks performed by the worker based on the total task time and the reference time information; a break setting unit that sets breaks between tasks in the series of tasks based on the task times of the respective tasks performed by the worker; and an output unit that outputs break information relating to the set breaks between the tasks.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity.
"acquires a total task time…acquires reference time information…calculates task times of the respective tasks…sets breaks between tasks in the series of tasks…outputs break information relating to the set breaks", recites abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be
performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely
adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract.
Further, as these operations are performed to “set breaks between tasks” and “output break information” to manage the performance of a worker, these expressly recite certain methods of organizing human activity on the grounds of managing personal behavior and relationships.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 7-8 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 2-6 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of their dependency from Claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A work recognition device, comprising:a total task time acquisition unit that acquires a total task time of a series of tasks performed by a worker; a reference time information acquisition unit that acquires reference time information relating to reference times of respective tasks of the series of tasks; a task time calculation unit that calculates task times of the respective tasks performed by the worker based on the total task time and the reference time information; a break setting unit that sets breaks between tasks in the series of tasks based on the task times of the respective tasks performed by the worker; and an output unit that outputs break information relating to the set breaks between the tasks.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “device”, “a total task time acquisition unit”, “a reference time information acquisition unit”, “a task time calculation”, “a break setting unit”, “and an output unit”.
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 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 or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claims 7-8 do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 4-5 additionally recite “output signals of a proximity sensor”. This does not serve to integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 2-3, 6 do not recite additional elements beyond those found in claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to 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 or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claims 7-8 do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 4-5 additionally recite “output signals of a proximity sensor”. This does not serve to integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 2-3, 6 do not recite additional elements beyond those found in claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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 1-3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi(US 20170270455 A1) in view of Kapoor(US 8620704 B1) in further view of Murakami(US 20200257444 A1).
Claims 1, 7-8
As to Claim 1,
Chi teaches:
A work recognition device, comprising: a total task time acquisition unit that acquires a total task time of a series of tasks performed by a worker;
See our examination of aggregate hours worked in [0027], "For example, users may be compensated for completing tasks (e.g. paid per task or hourly) and breaks may not be included when calculating a compensation total for a user". See our examination of individual task times that factor into the compensation total in [0035], "FIG. 5 shows a flow diagram of providing a break during a workflow according to an implementation of the disclosed subject matter. In 600, a task may be selected based on user history 440 data that is associated with the user, and in 602, the selected task may be provided to the user. In 604, a performance metric may be measured during performance of the provided task, and in 606, the user history 440 may be updated based on the measured performance metric. For example, a user's completion time (or average completion time) in the user history 440 may be updated based on a recent task completion time". It is implicit that per hourly compensation would require aggregating task completion times across tasks.
a break setting unit that sets breaks between tasks in the series of tasks based on the task times of the respective tasks performed by the worker; and an output unit that outputs break information relating to the set breaks between the tasks.
In [0024], "In 306, workflow attributes may be determined based on user performance during a workflow of tasks. A server may analyze workflow attributes to determine what types of tasks to provide to a user and when to provide a break to the user. The workflow attributes may include measurable metrics such as a count for the number of tasks completed, a timer, performance metrics, or other attributes or metrics. For example, a server may determine the number of tasks completed by a user and adjust the provided task type or provide a break after a predefined number of tasks have been completed. In another example, the server may adjust the workflow (e.g. determine whether to provide another task or a break) after a fixed amount of time. For instance, a timer may indicate that a break may be provided to the user in 5, 10, or 30 minute intervals. The server may also provide breaks according to a predefined schedule. For example, provide a break after completing five tasks". In [0035], "Once the break is selected, it may be provided to the user in 612".
Chi does not expressly teach the remaining limitations.
However, Kapoor teaches:
a reference time information acquisition unit that acquires reference time information relating to reference times of respective tasks of the series of tasks;
See Col 10 Lines 4-15, "For each task chain, a full-kit date can be determined by first computing a sum of the task durations and the required buffers in the task chain, and then subtracting this sum from the project end date. For example, for task chain C1, the sum of the task durations and the required buffers is equal to 16.5=6 (task duration of T7)+3 (required buffer of task T7)+5 (task duration of T3)+2.5 (required buffer of task T3). Therefore, the full-kit date based on task chain C1 is at time 18.5=35 (the project completion time)-16.5 (sum of task durations and required buffers). Similarly, the full-kit dates based on task chains C2, C3, and C4 are at times 11, 5, and 12.5". These stem from expected durations, note in Col 5 Lines 63-67, "FIG. 4A illustrates a task dependency network for a project. The values in the brackets indicate the durations the tasks are expected to execute or the sizes of the buffers. For ease of discourse we will assume that all time amounts shown in FIG. 4A are in days".
total task time and the reference time information
See Col 10 Lines 4-15 and Col 5 Lines 63-67 above.
Chi discloses a system for managing workflows of human employees. Kapoor discloses a system meant to schedule tasks based on time estimations. Each reference discloses workflow management for task completion. Extending the reference time information as recorded in Kapoor to the system of Chi is applicable as both reference share the field of endeavor of workflow management and scheduling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the reference time as taught in Kapoor and apply that to the system as taught in Chi. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that utilizing said times would help inform the scheduling and workflow management of Chi.
Chi combined with Kapoor does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.However, Murakami teaches:
a task time calculation unit that calculates task times of the respective tasks performed by the worker based on the total task time and the reference time information;
In [0096], "Therefore, the server 2 can calculate the work time of each of Tasks 1 to 3 in the work hours by using the proportion information stored in the target management database of the storage 23, and thereby greatly save employee's time to input the work time of each task".
Murakami discloses a system for workflow management in the context of estimating times by employees to complete jobs. Chi combined with Kapoor discloses a system meant to manage workflows of human employees. Each reference discloses means of managing workflows of employees. Extending the proportional calculation as recorded in Murakami to the system of Chi combined with Kapoor is applicable as both references share the field of endeavor of workflow management of employees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the proportional calculation as taught in Murakami and apply that to the system as taught in Chi combined with Kapoor. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting the proportional calculation would allow for granular estimates of individual task completion times.
Claim 8 additionally recites “a non-transitory recording medium”. See [0036] of Chi.
Claims 7-8 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 2
As to Claim 2, Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Chi does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Kapoor teaches:
total reference time and the total task time, the total reference time being a total of the reference times of the respective tasks.
In Col 10 Lines 4-15, "For each task chain, a full-kit date can be determined by first computing a sum of the task durations and the required buffers in the task chain, and then subtracting this sum from the project end date. For example, for task chain C1, the sum of the task durations and the required buffers is equal to 16.5=6 (task duration of T7)+3 (required buffer of task T7)+5 (task duration of T3)+2.5 (required buffer of task T3). Therefore, the full-kit date based on task chain C1 is at time 18.5=35 (the project completion time)-16.5 (sum of task durations and required buffers). Similarly, the full-kit dates based on task chains C2, C3, and C4 are at times 11, 5, and 12.5". These stem from expected durations, note in Col 5 Lines 63-67, "FIG. 4A illustrates a task dependency network for a project. The values in the brackets indicate the durations the tasks are expected to execute or the sizes of the buffers. For ease of discourse we will assume that all time amounts shown in FIG. 4A are in days".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the reference time as taught in Kapoor and apply that to the system as taught in Chi. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Chi combined with Kapoor does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.However, Murakami teaches:
The work recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the task time calculation unit calculates the task times of the respective tasks based on a ratio between a ... reference time and the ... task time,
Understanding the reference proportions to be reference time information, in [0071], "If it is determined at Step S6 that the enter button B1 has been pressed (Step S6; YES), the CPU 21 enters (stores) in the target management database in the storage 23 the proportion information indicating the current work proportion (the proportion of the work time of Tasks 1 to 3) displayed on the display 35 (step S7), and ends the work proportion entry process...the daily work report is entered in the target management database of the storage 23 as a daily work report with a request for reflection of the work time spent on each task, in which the proportion information indicating the current work proportion and the daily work report are associated with each other". In [0096], "Therefore, the server 2 can calculate the work time of each of Tasks 1 to 3 in the work hours by using the proportion information stored in the target management database of the storage 23, and thereby greatly save employee's time to input the work time of each task".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the proportional calculation as taught in Murakami and apply that to the system as taught in Chi combined with Kapoor. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 3
As to Claim 3, Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Chi combined with Kapoor does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.However, Murakami teaches:
The work recognition device according to claim 2, wherein the task time calculation unit calculates the task times of the respective tasks by multiplying the reference times of the respective tasks by the ratio.
In [0096], "Therefore, the server 2 can calculate the work time of each of Tasks 1 to 3 in the work hours by using the proportion information stored in the target management database of the storage 23, and thereby greatly save employee's time to input the work time of each task".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the proportional calculation as taught in Murakami and apply that to the system as taught in Chi combined with Kapoor. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 6
As to Claim 6, Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Chi does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.However, Kapoor teaches:
The work recognition device according to any one of claims 1, wherein the task time calculation unit subtracts the total task time of the series of tasks from an end time of a last task of the series of tasks to calculate a time that is a start time of a first task of the series of tasks.
In Col 10 Lines 4-15, "For each task chain, a full-kit date can be determined by first computing a sum of the task durations and the required buffers in the task chain, and then subtracting this sum from the project end date. For example, for task chain C1, the sum of the task durations and the required buffers is equal to 16.5=6 (task duration of T7)+3 (required buffer of task T7)+5 (task duration of T3)+2.5 (required buffer of task T3). Therefore, the full-kit date based on task chain C1 is at time 18.5=35 (the project completion time)-16.5 (sum of task durations and required buffers). Similarly, the full-kit dates based on task chains C2, C3, and C4 are at times 11, 5, and 12.5". These stem from expected durations, note in Col 5 Lines 63-67, "FIG. 4A illustrates a task dependency network for a project. The values in the brackets indicate the durations the tasks are expected to execute or the sizes of the buffers. For ease of discourse we will assume that all time amounts shown in FIG. 4A are in days".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the reference time as taught in Kapoor and apply that to the system as taught in Chi. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi(US 20170270455 A1) in view of Kapoor(US 8620704 B1) in further view of Murakami(US 20200257444 A1) in further view of Zhang(CN103149884A).
Claim 4
As to Claim 4, Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Zhang teaches:
The work recognition device according to any one of claims 1, wherein the total task time acquisition unit determines a start time of the series of tasks
In [0011], "The assembly information of RFID tags includes production line number, workstation number, assembly part information, assembly start time, assembly completion time, and assembly worker information".
based on output signals of a proximity sensor provided at a workbench at which a first task of the series of tasks is performed.
In [0008], "The electronic product assembly status monitoring system consists of RFID tags, readers, wireless modules, node controllers, alarm modules, servers, and production lines. RFID tags are installed on the parts of each electronic product, readers are installed on the right side of each workstation, and readers are installed on the far right side of the production line. The wireless module connects to the reader configured at each workstation, the alarm module is installed on the far right side of the production line, the node controller is installed on the far right side of each production line, and the server is located in the management room". In [0010], "Each component of an electronic product is equipped with an RFID tag. After the component is assembled, readers at different workstations write the assembly information for that workstation. The readers read the assembly information from the RFID tag and then send it to the server via a wireless module and node controller".
Zhang discloses a system for monitoring industrial workflows and logging different stages. Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami discloses a system meant to manage workflows of human employees. Each reference discloses means of managing workflows. Extending the sensor based logging in Zhang to the system of Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami is applicable as both references share the field of endeavor of managing workflows of employees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the sensor based logging of Zhang and apply that to the system as taught in Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting the sensor based system would allow both for extending the workflow management of Chi combined with Kapoor and Zhang to physical, industrial settings and provide a concrete means of logging the relevant engagement metrics of Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami.
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Zhang teaches:
The work recognition device according to claims 1, wherein the total task time acquisition unit determines an end time of the series of tasks
In [0011], "The assembly information of RFID tags includes production line number, workstation number, assembly part information, assembly start time, assembly completion time, and assembly worker information".
based on output signals of a proximity sensor provided at a workbench at which a last task of the series of tasks is performed.
In [0008], "The electronic product assembly status monitoring system consists of RFID tags, readers, wireless modules, node controllers, alarm modules, servers, and production lines. RFID tags are installed on the parts of each electronic product, readers are installed on the right side of each workstation, and readers are installed on the far right side of the production line. The wireless module connects to the reader configured at each workstation, the alarm module is installed on the far right side of the production line, the node controller is installed on the far right side of each production line, and the server is located in the management room". In [0010], "Each component of an electronic product is equipped with an RFID tag. After the component is assembled, readers at different workstations write the assembly information for that workstation. The readers read the assembly information from the RFID tag and then send it to the server via a wireless module and node controller".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the sensor based logging of Zhang and apply that to the system as taught in Chi combined with Kapoor and Murakami. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/THEODORE XIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights