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 . Claims 21-25, 27, 29-38, and 40 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 03/17/2026, amended claims, cancelled claims 26, 28, and 39, and previously cancelled claims 1-20. Claims 21-25, 27, 29-38, and 40 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
In view of the Applicant’s arguments and amended claims the 103 Rejections are overcome and therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claims recite a plurality of elements not capable of being performed in the human mind such as computer vision sensor, processing system, perform human gesture recognition, real-time, etc.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements (bolded below) are each addressed as performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Further the concept of human gesture recognition, classify(ing) …gestures as approved or unapproved when falls within a statistical range are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind as a human could watch and classify a gesture of another human waving their hand within a certain statistical range of motion (i.e. less than a 90 degree elbow bend or greater than a 0 degree bend).
Applicant further contends that the claims are not directed towards certain methods of organizing human activities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards human motion recognition for auditing a worksite (See Specification, [01]) which is a certain method of organizing human activity specifically business relations and further managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Applicant contends at Step 2A-Prong 2 that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applicant further points to the claimed limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Step 2A-Prong 2.
Applicant contends at Step 2B that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant further asserts the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activities (WURC).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are analyzed both individually as well as in combination and are determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Step 2B. The claims are not identified as WURC and as such no further evidence is required for the analysis.
The 101 rejection is updated and maintained below.
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 21-25, 27, 29-38, and 40 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 One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding independent claim(s), (additional elements bolded)
Regarding Claim 21, An automated human motion recognition system when used for worksite auditing, said system comprising: a computer vision sensor arrangeable at a worksite and configured to sense, in real-time, a human body gesture of at least one person active on said worksite; and
a processing system arranged in signal communication with the computer vision sensor and including a database of predetermined human body gesture models, said models comprising approved human body gesture models defined as suitable for the worksite and unapproved human body gestures defined as unsuitable for the worksite, such suitability defined according to operating and safety standards, training standards and/or legislative standards for the worksite, said processing system configured to:
i) receive said sensed human body gesture;
ii) perform human body gesture recognition by comparing said sensed human body gesture to the database of pre-determined human body gesture models;
iii) if the human body gesture recognition falls within predetermined statistical ranges, classify such sensed human body gesture as approved or unapproved as occurring;, wherein non-recognised human body gesture is classified as unapproved and recognised human body gesture is classified as approved;
iv) when approved human body gesture recognition occurs, perform automatic timekeeping during such occurrence for auditing purposes; and
v) pause or suspend automatic timekeeping when unapproved human body gesture recognition occurs.
Regarding Claim 34, A method for automated human motion recognition worksite auditing, said method comprising the steps of: sensing, in real-time, a human body gesture of at least one person active on said worksite by means of a computer vision sensor;
performing human body gesture recognition, via a processing system, by comparing said sensed human body gesture to a database of pre-determined human body gesture models, said models comprising approved human body gesture models defined as suitable for the worksite and unapproved human body gestures defined as unsuitable for the worksite, such suitability defined according to operating and safety standards, training standards and/or legislative standards for the worksite;
if the human body gesture recognition falls within predetermined statistical ranges,
classifying such sensed human body gesture as approved or unapproved as occurring by means of the processing system, wherein non-recognised human body gesture is classified as unapproved and recognised human body gesture is classified as approved;
when approved human body gesture recognition occurs, via the processing system, performing automatic timekeeping during such occurrence for auditing purposes; and
pausing or suspending, via the processing system, the automatic timekeeping when unapproved human body gesture recognition occurs.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards models comprising approved human gestures, perform body gesture recognition by comparing gesture to pre-determined gestures, classify human gestures as approved or unapproved, and perform timekeeping during occurrences all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards human motion recognition for auditing a worksite (See Specification, [01]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least an automated/automatic (implies use of a general purpose computer); real-time (implies use of a general purpose computer); a processing system arranged in signal communication with the computer vision sensor and including a database; receive said sensed human body gesture; and a processing system. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claims 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 33, 35, 37, 38, and 40, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims.
Regarding Claims 23 and 36, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of perform machine learning (i.e. recited at a high level of generality)This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of a sensor selected from a non-exhaustive group consisting of a camera (still and/or video), a lidar sensor
(light imaging detection and ranging), a radar sensor (radio detection and ranging), an ultrasonic sensor, a sonar sensor, a proximity sensor, and a laser sensor. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim 32, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of computer vision sensor is configured to sense human body gesture. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
Claims 21-25, 27, 29-38, and 40, though directed to non-statutory subject matter, are deemed to define over the currently known prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103. Examiner interprets based upon the claim limitations that there is no currently known prior art that discloses the features relating to: “i) receive said sensed human body gesture; ii) perform human body gesture recognition by comparing said sensed human body gesture to the database of pre-determined human body gesture models; iii) if the human body gesture recognition falls within predetermined statistical ranges, classify such sensed human body gesture as approved or unapproved as occurring, wherein non-recognised human body gesture is classified as unapproved and recognised human body gesture is classified as approved; [[and]] iv) when approved human body gesture recognition occurs, perform automatic timekeeping during such occurrence for auditing purposes; and v) pause or suspend automatic timekeeping when unapproved human body gesture recognition occurs.”
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 21-25, 27, 29-38, and 40 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Known Prior Art (patent)
US-20170316259-A1
Hoy et al.
US-20180293873-A1
Liu et al.
US-20180174313-A1
Iizaka et al.
US-20160005281-A1
Laska et al.
US-20170098354-A1
Loeb et al.
US-20140058801-A1
Deodhar et al.
US-20210192419-A1
Von Troll et al.
US-20220284566-A1
Starr et al.
US-11172818-B1
Theimer et al.
US-20190080157-A1
Lev et al.
Known Prior Art (NPL)
R. Zhao, Y. Wang, P. Jia, C. Li, Y. Ma and Z. Zhang, "Review of Human Gesture Recognition Based on Computer Vision Technology," 2021 IEEE 5th Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), Chongqing, China, 2021, pp. 1599-1603,
Known Prior Art (foreign)
CN111191599A
Liu et al.
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 JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights