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 examiner acknowledges receipt of preliminary amendments dated September 20, 2024 in which, the applicants cancelled claims 1-20, and added new claims 21-40.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 21, 37 and 39 recite(s) a method, a CRM and an apparatus. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 21, 37 and 39 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 21, 37 and 39 are directed to a method, a CRM, and an apparatus.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 21, 37 and 39 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 21, 37 and 39: the limitations recite:
[acquiring a first condition related to a tool used for repair or installation work] (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind)
[acquiring a second condition related to a work target] (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind)
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally look at an image or video and determine the tool used for the work being performed. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a generic computer does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 21, 37 and 39 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 21, 37 and 39 discloses an activity of outputting the video with the tool and work being performed, which are insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a method, a CRM or an apparatus.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 21, 37 and 39 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 21, 37 and 39 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 21, 37 and 39 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 22-25: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations are mental processes including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Similarly, regarding independent claims 31, 38 and 40 the limitations recite:
[detecting a tool used by a worker in a moving image obtained by capturing repair or installation work] (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind)
[detecting a work target of the repair or installation work in the moving image] (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind)
As such, a person could mentally look at an image or video and determine the tool used for the work being performed. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a generic computer does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Independent claims 31, 38 and 40 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 31, 38 and 40 discloses an activity of storing the video with the tool and work being performed, which are insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a method, a CRM or an apparatus.
Regarding claims 32-36: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations are mental processes including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-24, 29, 31, 33 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PgPub. No. 2024/0071113 by Endo (hereinafter ‘Endo’).
In regards to claim 21, Endo teaches an information processing method comprising: acquiring a first condition related to a tool used for repair or installation work; (See Endo paragraphs [0045] and [0061], Endo teaches detecting an object (tool) in based on image analysis.)
acquiring a second condition related to a work target; and (See Endo paragraphs [0045] and [0064], Endo teaches detecting action with a video).
outputting a moving image obtained by capturing the repair or installation work or information on the moving image based on the first condition and the second condition. (See Endo paragraph [0045] and [0048], Endo teaches displaying video created based on the detected object and action.)
In regards to claim 22, Endo teaches wherein an image of one or a plurality of tools is output as an option related to the first condition, and an image of one or a plurality of work targets is output as an option related to the second condition, and the first condition and the second condition are acquired in accordance with selection of the output options. (See Endo paragraphs [0045] and [0048]).
In regards to claim 23, Endo teaches wherein a scene in the moving image identified based on the first condition or the second condition is output. (See Endo paragraph [0067], Endo teaches searching for scenes involving the tool and action.)
In regards to claim 24, Endo teaches wherein a hand of a worker is detected in the moving image, and a tool used by the hand is detected based on the detected hand. (See Endo Figure 2 and paragraph [0048]).
In regards to claim 29, Endo teaches wherein a summary moving image is generated from the moving image based on the tool and the work target detected, the summary moving image is stored in a database, and information on a tool and a work target captured in the summary moving image is stored as search information in a database. (See Endo paragraphs [0078]-[0079]).
In regards to claim 31, Endo teaches an information processing method comprising: detecting a tool used by a worker in a moving image obtained by capturing repair or installation work; (See Endo paragraphs [0045] and [0061], Endo teaches detecting an object (tool) in based on image analysis.)
detecting a work target of the repair or installation work in the moving image; and (See Endo paragraphs [0045] and [0064], Endo teaches detecting action with a video).
storing information on the tool and the work target detected and the moving image in a database in association with each other. (See Endo paragraph [0095], Endo teaches storing information tool, action and generated video.)
In regards to claim 33, Endo teaches wherein an input of the information on the work target is received when the work target is unable to be detected in the moving image. (See Endo paragraphs [0045] and [0064], Endo teaches detecting action with a video)
Claims 37 and 39 recite limitations that are similar to claim 21. Therefore, claims 37 and 39 are rejected similarly as claim 21.
Claims 38 and 40 recite limitations that are similar to claim 31. Therefore, claims 38 and 40 are rejected similarly as claim 31.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28, 32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PgPub. No. 2024/0071113 by Endo (hereinafter ‘Endo’) in view of US PgPub. No. 2019/0045158 by Osanai et al. (hereinafter ‘Osanai’).
In regards to claim 25, Endo teaches all the limitations of claim 24. Endo also teaches wherein a moving portion is detected in the moving image. (See Endo paragraph [0064], Endo teaches determining actions.)
However, Endo does not expressly teach, a portion of the tool is obtained by removing a portion of the hand from the moving portion.
Osanai teaches a portion of the tool is obtained by removing a portion of the hand from the moving portion. [See Osanai paragraph [0048], Osanai teaches determining objects based on positions of hands.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Endo to include object detection using method of Osanai. The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following findings: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Endo in this manner because/in order to be able to accurately detect tools in the video.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Endo with Osanai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25.
In regards to claim 26, Endo and Osanai teach all the limitations of claim 25. . (New) The information processing method according to claim 25, wherein a work target position is calculated based on a position of a fingertip and a center position of a plurality of fingertips as well as the portion of the hand and the portion of the tool detected.
In regards to claim 28, Endo and Osanai teach all the limitations wherein the work target is detected based on a work target position calculated for a plurality of frames. (See Endo paragraph [0064]).
In regards to claim 30, Endo teaches all the limitations of claim 29. Osanai teaches wherein the tool is a measurement instrument that performs measurement related to the work target, and information on the tool and the work target detected and information on a measurement result obtained by the tool are stored in the database in association with each other, and the information on the measurement result obtained by the tool is output based on the first condition and the second condition. (See Osanai paragraph [0144], Osanai teaches a color measurement camera and storing measurement information in a database.)
In regards to claim 32, Endo teaches all the limitations of claim 31.
However, Endo does not expressly teach, wherein the tool is a measurement instrument that performs measurement related to the work target, and the information on the tool and the work target detected and information on a result of the measurement by the tool are stored in the database in association with each other.
Osanai teaches wherein the tool is a measurement instrument that performs measurement related to the work target, and the information on the tool and the work target detected and information on a result of the measurement by the tool are stored in the database in association with each other. (See Osanai paragraph [0144], Osanai teaches a color measurement camera and storing measurement information in a database.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Endo to include a measurement tool as taught by Osanai. The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following findings: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Endo in this manner because/in order to be able to accurately detect tools in the video.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Endo with Osanai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 32.
In regards to claim 34, Endo and Osanai teach all the limitations of claim 32. Osanai also teaches wherein the result of the measurement by the tool is continuously acquired together with the moving image, and when the acquired measurement result fluctuates, the measurement result after the fluctuation has settled is stored in the database. (See Osanai paragraphs [0144] and [0149]).
In regards to claim 35, Endo and Osanai teach all the limitations of claim 32. Osanai also teaches wherein whether the result of the measurement by the tool is valid is determined in accordance with a positional relationship between the tool and the work target detected in the moving image, and the measurement result determined to be valid is stored in the database. (See Osanai paragraphs [0144] and [0149]).
In regards to claim 36, Endo and Osanai teach all the limitations of claim 32. Osanai also teaches wherein a moving image captured by a wearable device worn by the worker is acquired, and the tool and the work target are detected in the acquired moving image. (See Osanai paragraph [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claims 27, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein when the hand is detected and the tool is not detected, the work target position is calculated based on the position of the fingertip, the center position of the plurality of fingertips, and the portion of the hand detected.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UTPAL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:30.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights