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 .
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 limitations are:
In claim 1, “a communication unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 1, “a processing unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 2, “a posture estimation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 2, “a load estimation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 2, “a high load determination unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 2, “an information generation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 3, “an upper arm state estimation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 3, “a waist state estimation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 4, “a waist state estimation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 4, “a knee state estimation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 6, “a communication unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 6, “a processing unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 12, “a reception unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 13, “a communication unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 13, “a processing unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 14, “a posture estimation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 14, “a load estimation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 14, “a high load determination unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
In claim 14, “an information generation unit”. However, the specification does not recite corresponding structure to the claimed element. Issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are raised which will be addressed below.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As noted above with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the claims, the noted limitations of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 14 lack corresponding structure in the specification. Therefore, the claims are rendered indefinite. The dependent claims, inclusive of the limitations of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 14, are also rejected with their base claims. The examiner suggests amending the claims to positively recite claimed elements that are structurally supported by the specification. In this action, all of the noted elements from claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 14 will be treated as generic computing/processing units.
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 (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 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 state of a load on the worker wearing the workwear, 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); 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
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
Prosecution Insights