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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of claims 1-4, 6 and 12-14 are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the claims is withdrawn along with the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-15.
Applicant's arguments, pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-15, filed 9/14/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 10 of Remarks, the applicant argues “The Action maps the high-load determination of claim 1 to Sato at FIGS. 1-2 and 11 [0063] and [0078]-[0094], asserting that Sato estimates a high load state of the worker "based on changes to posture." Action, Pgs. 9 and 10. Sato does not, however, determine any high load state from a change in the worker's own posture relative to that worker's initial state. Instead, Sato determines an incorrect working posture by comparing the worker's posture and workload score against a predetermined "correct posture" reference and a fixed workload-score threshold. Sato, FIGS. 7A-7B; TT[0086], [0089], [0094]. Specifically, Sato determines an incorrect working posture when the workload score exceeds a predetermined threshold value 601, Sato, [0086], compares the feature amount data with feature amount data previously stored for works in the correct posture, Sato, [0089], and transmits the feature amount to be improved and the difference from the correct posture, Sato, [0094]. That comparison-to-a-reference approach is the very approach the present application distinguishes, because a body shape and physique differ for each worker such that a degree of actual fatigue of the worker cannot be estimated when compared with a pattern registered in advance. Specification, [0006]. In contrast to Sato, claims 1, 6, and 12 determine the high load state from the worker's own change from an initial state. Specification, " 0044 and 0047-0048; Drawings, FIG. 7. The only "initial state" in Sato is used solely to calibrate the elbow-angle sensor to an upright posture, not to determine a high load state from any temporal change. Sato, 1 0076. Sato therefore does not disclose, expressly or inherently, determining the high load state "when the estimated posture changes from the initial state of the worker by a predetermined amount or more," as recited in each of claims 1, 6, and 12. All words in a claim must be considered. MPEP § 2143.03 (quoting In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970)). Because at least this element is absent from Sato, claims 1, 6, and 12 are not anticipated. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, claims 7-10 depend ultimately from claim 6, and claims 13-15 depend from claim 12, and are allowable at least by virtue of their dependency and further recite additional features.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “determines a high load state of the worker based on a temporal change in the estimated posture relative to an initial state of the worker”. As currently presented, claim 1 does not require that the initial state of the worker is an actively measured state. Rather, the claim requires determined estimated posture changes from an initial state of the worker which can be predetermined. The “reference” posture disclosed by Sato reads on the claimed “initial state of the worker” because the claim does not include an active step of measuring the initial state of the worker. Additionally, Paragraph 0087 of Sato discloses “For example, incorrect working postures may be determined based on relative variations of the workload score without the use of the threshold value. The threshold value 601 may be variable rather than fixed.” Therefore, Sato discloses the use of a variable threshold that is used to determine variances in worker posture from an initial state. Sato discloses the argued limitations of claim 1 (and similarly claims 6 and 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (hereafter Sato)(US PgPub 2021/0335114).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a load recognition device (Figure 1, Element 100) comprising: a communication unit configured to receive and transmit a signal (Figure 1, Element 110 and Paragraph 0062 where the communication portion receives and transmits signals); and a processing unit configured to process the signal received by the communication unit (Figure 1, Elements 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 and Paragraphs 0063-0067 where all of the processing portions process signals received from sensors), wherein the processing unit processes signals received by the communication unit from a plurality of posture sensors mounted on a workwear worn by a worker, estimates a posture of the worker, and determines a high load state of the worker based on a temporal change in the estimated posture relative to an initial state of the worker, the worker being determined to be in the high load state when the estimated posture changes from the initial state of the worker by a predetermined amount or more (Figures 1-2, Paragraphs 0063 and 0078-0094 where the processing portions process signals received from the sensors and estimate a posture of a worker and a high load state of the worker based on changes to posture. The high load state of the worker is determined based on changes to worker posture from an initial/reference state. Sato further discloses that incorrect working postures may be determined based on relative variations of the workload score without the use of the threshold value. The threshold value 601 may be variable rather than fixed), and the communication unit receives the signals from the plurality of posture sensors mounted on the workwear worn by the worker, and transmits information on the high load state of the worker determined by the processing unit (Figures 1-2, Elements 100, 200, Figures 7A-7B, Figure 14 and Paragraphs 0062, 0066 and 0140-0144 where warnings are provided to a user when poor posture/high load is detected).
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses wherein the processing unit includes a posture estimation unit that processes the signals from the plurality of posture sensors received by the communication unit and estimates the posture of the worker, a load estimation unit that estimates a load on the worker based on the posture of the worker estimated by the posture estimation unit, a high load determination unit that determines the high load state of the worker based on a temporal change in a state of the load on the worker estimated by the load estimation unit, and an information generation unit that generates
information to be notified to the worker when the high load determination unit determines that the worker is in the high load state (Figure 1, Elements 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, Paragraphs 0063-0067 and 0078-0094 where the processing portions determine posture, load and compare the load to a threshold to determine that the worker needs to be notified and/or warned).
Regarding claim 3, Sato discloses wherein the posture estimation unit includes an upper arm state estimation unit that detects a rotation angle of an upper arm of the worker with respect to a shoulder of the worker, and a waist state estimation unit that detects a bending angle of a waist of the worker (Figure 2, Figure 4, Element 11 and Paragraphs 0070, 0071, 0072, 0073, 0082, 0090, 0091 and 003 where the shoulder and waist load and posture are determined relative to determined angles of the body parts).
Regarding claim 4, Sato discloses wherein the posture estimation unit includes a waist state
estimation unit that detects a bending angle of a waist of the worker and a knee state estimation unit that detects a bending angle of a knee of the worker (Figures 2, 4, Element 11 and Paragraphs 0070, 0073, 0078-0094 and 0125 where the sensors detect waist and knee state relative to determined angles of the body parts and estimate posture).
Regarding claim 5, Sato discloses wherein the load estimation unit estimates a load applied to a waist of the worker based on a temporal change in the posture of the worker estimated by the posture estimation unit (Figures 1-2, Paragraphs 0063, 0070, 0073 and 0078-0094 where the processing portions process signals received from the waist sensors and estimate a posture of a worker and a high load state of the worker based on changes to posture).
Method claims 6-10 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-5. Therefore method claims 6-10 correspond to apparatus claims 1-5 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 12, Sato discloses a work support system (Figures 1-2) comprising: a plurality of posture sensors mounted on a workwear worn by a worker (Figure 2, Element 11 and Paragraph 0045); a load recognition device configured to receive output signals respectively from the plurality of posture sensors, determine a high load state of the worker wearing the workwear based on a temporal change, relative to an initial state of the worker, in a posture of the worker estimated from the output signals, the worker being determined to be in the high load state when the estimated posture changes from the initial state of the worker by a predetermined amount or more, and transmit a result of the determination (Figure 1, Element 100 and Paragraphs 0063 and 0078-0094 where the processing portions process signals received from the sensors and estimate a posture of a worker and a high load state of the worker based on changes to posture. The high load state of the worker is determined based on changes to worker posture from an initial/reference state. Sato further discloses that incorrect working postures may be determined based on relative variations of the workload score without the use of the threshold value. The threshold value 601 may be variable rather than fixed. The high load state determination is transmitted); and a reception unit configured to receive the result of the determination transmitted from the load recognition device, and notify the worker wearing the workwear of the result (Figures 1-2, Elements 100, 200, Figures 7A-7B, Figure 14 and Paragraphs 0062, 0066 and 0140-0144 where warnings are provided to a user when poor posture/high load is detected).
Regarding claim 13, Sato discloses wherein the load recognition device includes a communication unit that receives and transmits a signal (Figure 1, Element 110 and Paragraph 0062 where the communication portion receives and transmits signals), and a processing unit that processes the signal received by the communication unit, the processing unit processes the signals received by the communication unit respectively from the plurality of posture sensors mounted on the workwear worn by the worker (Figure 1, Elements 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 and Paragraphs 0063-0067 where all of the processing portions process signals received from sensors), estimates a posture of the worker, and determines a high load state of the worker based on a temporal change in the estimated posture (Figures 1-2, Paragraphs 0063 and 0078-0094 where the processing portions process signals received from the sensors and estimate a posture of a worker and a high load state of the worker based on changes to posture), and the communication unit receives the signals from the plurality of posture sensors mounted on the workwear worn by the worker, and transmits information on the high load state of the worker determined by the processing unit (Figures 1-2, Elements 100, 200, Figures 7A-7B, Figure 14 and Paragraphs 0062, 0066 and 0140-0144 where warnings are provided to a user when poor posture/high load is detected).
Regarding claim 14, Sato discloses wherein the processing unit includes a posture estimation unit that processes the signals from the plurality of posture sensors received by the communication unit and estimates the posture of the worker, a load estimation unit that estimates the load on the worker based on the posture of the worker estimated by the posture estimation unit, a high load determination unit that determines the high load state of the worker based on a temporal change in the state of the load on the worker estimated by the load estimation unit, and an information generation unit that generates information to be notified to the worker when the high load determination unit determines that the worker is in the high load state (Figure 1, Elements 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, Paragraphs 0063-0067 and 0078-0094 where the processing portions determine posture, load and compare the load to a threshold to determine that the worker needs to be notified and/or warned).
Regarding claim 15, Sato discloses wherein the reception unit receives the information transmitted from the communication unit, and notifies the worker wearing the workwear by a sound, an image, or both (Paragraphs 0114, 0118, 0128 and 0144).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Sato et al. (hereafter Sato)(US PgPub 2021/0335114) and in view of Patel et al. (hereafter Patel(US PgPub 2016/0249174).
Regarding claim 11, Sato does not specifically disclose wherein the information on the high load state of the worker transmitted from the communication unit includes information for prompting the worker to recover from fatigue. Rather, Sato discloses providing notifications relative to posture and high load. In the same field of endeavor, Patel discloses where information received from a wearable sensor is used to determine the fatigue of a user (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fatigue determination of Patel to the worker system of Sato, motivation being to detect user fatigue which can aid in preventing injury or harm. Furthermore, such a modification involves routine skill in the art, was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
