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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action.
Claims 1-13 are amended. Claim 14 is cancelled. Claims 15-16 are newly added. Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are currently considered. Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite “a process monitoring system for automatically monitoring process on site”. The claims should read “a process monitoring system for automatically monitoring a process on site”.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite “at least one position sensors” and later recite “the positions sensors”. This should be corrected to either “”at least one position sensor” or “one or more position sensors.”
Claims 3 and 9 recite “the position sensors comprises”. The claims should read “the position sensors comprise” or “the position sensor comprises.”
Claim 6 recites “the methods further comprises”. The claim should ready “the method further comprises.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-6 and 15), the System (claims 7-12 and 16), and a computer program comprising instruction…executed by a processing circuity (claim 13) directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of collecting process-location data, organizing the data into heat maps, evaluating task status from the organizing data, and report the task status, which falls into “mental process”. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 7, are: A process monitoring system for automatically monitoring process on site, whereby one or more devices, one or more persons and/or one or more materials being involved in performing the process, at least a subset of the one or more devices, one or more persons and/or one or more materials being equipped with at least one position sensors separately, the position sensors being able to wirelessly communicate with the process monitoring system, whereby the process monitoring system is operative for: obtaining three-dimension (3D) position information detected by the at least one position sensors wirelessly during the process(recited at high level of generality amounts data gathering steps which fall to extra-solution activity); generating one or more heat maps based on the obtained 3D position information; determining the start, delay and/or finish of one or more tasks based on the generated one or more heat maps, the one or more tasks being performed by involving the subset of the one or more devices, one or more persons and/or one or more materials, the one or more tasks being contained in the process, the determining being performed by machine learning(recited at high level of generality); notifying the determined start, delay and/or finish of the one or more tasks to a user of the process monitoring system(recited at high level of generality which amounts to displaying results which falls within extra-solution activity). Examiner notes claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims 1 and 13 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 7, and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to process monitoring system, entity being equipped with at least one position sensors separately, the position sensors being able to wirelessly communicate with the process monitoring system, data detected by the at least one position sensors wirelessly during the process(recited at high level of generality amounts data gathering steps which fall to extra-solution activity), the determining being performed by machine learning(recited at high level of generality); notifying the determined start, delay and/or finish of the one or more tasks to a user of the process monitoring system(recited at high level of generality which amounts to displaying results which falls within extra-solution activity), and a computer program comprising instruction…executed by a processing circuity. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0044-0045] describes high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Further, in accordance to MPEP 2106.05(f), the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: process monitoring system, entity being equipped with at least one position sensors separately, the position sensors being able to wirelessly communicate with the process monitoring system, data detected by the at least one position sensors wirelessly during the process(recited at high level of generality amounts data gathering steps which fall to extra-solution activity), the determining being performed by machine learning(recited at high level of generality); notifying the determined start, delay and/or finish of the one or more tasks to a user of the process monitoring system(recited at high level of generality which amounts to displaying results which falls within extra-solution activity), and a computer program comprising instruction…executed by a processing circuity. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0044-0045]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. The claims do not impose any limits on how the machine learning is used to determine the start, delay, and/or finish of the one or more tasks. The claims also do not impose any limits on how the analysis is accomplished, and thus it can be performed in any way known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer court case, below can be found evidence provided by the Examiner that provides, based on 2B analysis, how the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity for consistency with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer and MPEP 2106.5(d). This is supported by the fact that the disclosure does not provide the details necessary to provide significantly more than the abstract idea performed on a general-purpose computer and therefore not significantly more.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well(claims 2 and 8 recites the process monitoring system is further operative for training the machine learning model based on user input (recited at high level of generality), claims 3 and 9 recite the position sensors comprises one or more of Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor, Bluetooth based positioning system sensor, Wireless Fidelity positioning system (WPS) sensor, narrow band 3D positioning system sensor, camera, Radar and height gauge (recited at high level of generality as means to capture data), 4 and 10 recite displaying the heat map (amounts to extra-solution activity), and claims 5 and 11 recite obtaining other sensed information detected by the at least one other sensor wirelessly the process(amounts to data gathering means which fall into extra-solution activity) claims 15 and 16 recite the at least one other sensor is one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, vibration sensor, temperature sensor, sound sensor and light sensor (recited at high level of generality). these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0044-0045] describes high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0044-0045]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo), however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of mental process, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Andrew Guillemette (US 20180357583 A1, hereinafter “Guillemette”) in view of Evan (US 20220292834 A1, hereinafter “DeSantola”).
Claims 1/7/13
Guillemette teaches:
A process monitoring system for automatically monitoring process on site(Abstract and [0031]; an operational monitoring system that collects information in real-time from a work-site with a personnel tracking system, an equipment tracking system), whereby one or more devices, one or more persons and/or one or more materials being involved in performing the process([0055] toggling the categories 120 for personnel, equipment, and other displays the renderings 100 for the workers 52, the construction equipment 60, and the materials 102 present at the work-site 22), at least a subset of the one or more devices, one or more persons and/or one or more materials being equipped with at least one position sensors separately, the position sensors being able to wirelessly communicate with the process monitoring system([0035] The personnel tracking system 14 includes one or more personnel tokens 40. The personnel token 40 has a combination of an inertial navigational system (INS) 42, a GPS module 44, a barometer 46, a compass 38, an acoustic sensor 48, an angular velocity sensor 49, a magnetometer 50, and one or more wireless device 26. The personnel token 40 transmits information to the server 28), whereby the process monitoring system is operative for:
obtaining three-dimension (3D) position information detected by the at least one position sensors wirelessly during the process([0035]The personnel token 40 allows the tracking of the position, movement, and orientation. The personnel token 40 transmits information to the server 28, which in turn utilizes Wi-Fi triangulation, acceleration, rotation, and latitude in longitude to derive the current position, movement, and orientation of a worker 52. [0048] the 3D environment 98 is continuously updating with the direction, speed, and position of workers 52 and equipment 60, the end user 68 can monitor the movement and orientation for each worker 52 and equipment 60);
generating one or more heat maps based on the obtained 3D position information([0061] The cost and field attribute 126 provides a cost heat map 134 of the costs being incurred within a particular zone 76 or entire work-site 22 in real-time or over an elapsed period of time. The cost heat map 134 utilizes the costs related to workers 52, construction equipment 60, and tasks 74, and zones 76 defined in the task management system 62 in conjunction with the position of workers 52, construction equipment 60, and materials 102 collected by the personnel tracking system 12 and equipment tracking system 14 to overlay varying degrees of cost by color code that intensifies as costs increase in an area);
the one or more tasks being performed by involving the subset of the one or more devices, one or more persons and/or one or more materials, the one or more tasks being contained in the process([0043]the end user 68 can schedule various tasks 74 to be completed within the zone 76 by select workers 52. [0021] A task management system allows for the designation of tasks and zones for the work-site, which are assigned to workers to complete at scheduled times),
While Guillemette teaches in [0021] an end user, such as a supervisor, can monitor progress at a work site and be automatically alerted if certain conditions occur, including accidents, near accidents, equipment failures, and absent or tardy workers in real-time. [0041] the end user 68 provides a description 84 of the task 74 along with a start date 86 and an end date 88. A predefined time 90 can also be associated with the task 74. One or more work profile 72 can then be assigned to the task 74. [0058] The attendance attribute 126 displays the location of workers 52 and construction equipment 60 that are not present in the correct zone 76. Similarly, tardiness and absence can be tracked by the personnel tracking system 12 by noting the time the worker 52 arrives in the assigned zone 76 and when the worker 52 leaves the zone 76. Additionally, upon completion of the assigned task 74, the worker 52 or end-user 68 can indicate the task 74 is complete. The time of completion can be compared with the start date 86 and end date 88 entered in the task management system 62. This allows the schedule 94 to be updated in real-time (e.g. rolling Gantt chart), which allows for other tasks 74 to be adjusted accordingly. [0061] The cost and field attribute 126 provides a cost heat map 134 of the costs being incurred within a particular zone 76 or entire work-site 22 in real-time or over an elapsed period of time. The cost heat map 134 utilizes the costs related to workers 52, construction equipment 60, and tasks 74, and zones 76 defined in the task management system 62 in conjunction with the position of workers 52, construction equipment 60, and materials 102 collected by the personnel tracking system 12 and equipment tracking system 14 to overlay varying degrees of cost by color code that intensifies as costs increase in an area. Guillemette does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of tracking and monitoring system, DeSantola teaches:
determining the start, delay and/or finish of one or more tasks based on the generated one or more [sensed data]([0324] processing logic determines preparation times of given employees, menu items, and/or preparations steps. The preparation times and/or other times may be determined by determining when a particular action begins and when the particular action ends (e.g., when processing logic identifies that a place ingredient action has begun and when the place ingredient action has ended)), the determining being performed by machine learning([0114] The data acquisition system 302 may include one or more cameras 304 and/or sensors 306 to acquire image data (e.g., image data 252 of FIG. 2) associated with a state of the kitchen. For example, camera(s) 304 may be disposed within a meal preparation area to capture images of current food preparation items and/or actions. [0280] image data is used as input to one or more trained machine learning models. The one or more outputs may be indicative of a meal preparation item and/or a meal preparation action);
notifying the determined start, delay and/or finish of the one or more tasks to a user of the process monitoring system([0344] the KDS 1224 may display or prompt one or more actions associated with one or more preparation items in the meal preparation zone 1202. For example the KDS may use an overlay such as a graphic, visual cue, or other display mechanism to identify one or more remaining steps for a given meal preparation procedure. [0262] At block 614, processing logic may publish data associated with the tracking of the first order. The published data may be used by one or more kitchen management processes. [0263] The data may include a list of ingredients, actions, timestamps, and/or other information associated with an order. The data may be used by pacing logic (e.g., pacing model 334 or method 700 of FIG. 7) to further determine pacing data (e.g., pacing data 322) based on the published data. For example, the published data may include a tabulation of all actions that were performed on an order at different time and which objects were detected for that order at different times. [0264] he published data can be accessible by an endpoint device such as a client device (e.g., client device 207 of FIG. 2) or kitchen display system (e.g., KDS 104 of FIG. 1). The published data may include a list of timestamps that are associated with that particular order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guillemette with DeSantola to include determining the start, delay and/or finish of one or more tasks and notifying the determined start, delay and/or finish of the one or more tasks to a user of the process monitoring system using sensed data and heat map data captured in the process taught in Guillemette, where one of ordinary skill in the art would use the heat-map spatial representation as preprocessed activity-location input . Doing so would provide the system with accurate planning of tasks based on efficient and accurate site monitoring[0004].
Claims 3/9
Guillemette teaches:
The process monitoring system as claimed in claim 7, the position sensors comprises one or more of Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor, Bluetooth based positioning system sensor, Wireless Fidelity positioning system (WPS) sensor, narrow band 3D positioning system sensor, camera, Radar and height gauge([0035] The personnel token 40 has a combination of an inertial navigational system (INS) 42, a GPS module 44, a barometer 46, a compass 38, an acoustic sensor 48, an angular velocity sensor 49, a magnetometer 50, and one or more wireless device 26. The personnel token 40 allows the tracking of the position, movement, and orientation).
Claims 4/10
Guillemette teaches:
The process monitoring system as claimed in claim 7, the process monitoring system is further operative for displaying the generated one or more heat maps to the user of the of the process monitoring system ([0061] The cost and field attribute 126 provides a cost heat map 134 of the costs being incurred within a particular zone 76 or entire work-site 22 in real-time or over an elapsed period of time. the heat map provides and immediate visual summary of costs. [0052] Once the interactive display system 64 is accessed, the end user 68 is presented with the work-sites 22 associated with the end user 68. [0069] the interactive display system 64 uses an augmented reality display or headset 96 that displays the 3D environmental 98 on a raised platform 136 (not shown) so that multiple end users 68 can cooperatively monitor one or more work-site 22 or zones 76).
Claims 6/12
Guillemette teaches:
The process monitoring system as claimed in claim 7, the process monitoring system is further operative for: monitoring the progress of the one or more task based on separate predefined schedule of each of the one or more task and the determined start, delay and/or finish of the one or more task([0021] an end user, such as a supervisor, can monitor progress at a work site and be automatically alerted if certain conditions occur, including accidents, near accidents, equipment failures, and absent or tardy workers in real-time. [0041] the end user 68 provides a description 84 of the task 74 along with a start date 86 and an end date 88. A predefined time 90 can also be associated with the task 74. One or more work profile 72 can then be assigned to the task 74. [0058] The attendance attribute 126 displays the location of workers 52 and construction equipment 60 that are not present in the correct zone 76. Similarly, tardiness and absence can be tracked by the personnel tracking system 12 by noting the time the worker 52 arrives in the assigned zone 76 and when the worker 52 leaves the zone 76. Additionally, upon completion of the assigned task 74, the worker 52 or end-user 68 can indicate the task 74 is complete. The time of completion can be compared with the start date 86 and end date 88 entered in the task management system 62. This allows the schedule 94 to be updated in real-time (e.g. rolling Gantt chart), which allows for other tasks 74 to be adjusted accordingly).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Guillemette in view of DeSantola, as applied in claims 1 and 7, and further in view of Lai Him Matthew Man (US 20190236370 A1, hereinafter “Man”).
Claims 2/8
While Guillemette teaches in [0021] an end user, such as a supervisor, can monitor progress at a work site and be automatically alerted if certain conditions occur, including accidents, near accidents, equipment failures, and absent or tardy workers in real-time and [0035] The personnel token 40 allows the tracking of the position, movement, and orientation. The personnel token 40 transmits information to the server 28, which in turn utilizes Wi-Fi triangulation, acceleration, rotation, and latitude in longitude to derive the current position, movement, and orientation of a worker 52. [0048] the 3D environment 98 is continuously updating with the direction, speed, and position of workers 52 and equipment 60, the end user 68 can monitor the movement and orientation for each worker 52 and equipment 60. DeSantola teaches [0114] The data acquisition system 302 may include one or more cameras 304 and/or sensors 306 to acquire image data (e.g., image data 252 of FIG. 2) associated with a state of the kitchen. For example, camera(s) 304 may be disposed within a meal preparation area to capture images of current food preparation items and/or actions. [0280] image data is used as input to one or more trained machine learning models. The one or more outputs may be indicative of a meal preparation item and/or a meal preparation action. Guillemette does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of tracking and monitoring system, Man teaches:
The process monitoring system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the process monitoring system is further operative for training the machine learning model based on user input([0115] the training process may be initialized by trainers 744, who communicate with training applications 704 via, for example, an Internet-based network 742. The training applications 704 may be configured to access a machine learning API 706. Machine learning API 706 may be also configured to retrieve data from an object detection database 708. [0117] Machine learning API 706 may be used to generate a machine learning model 755. Model 755 may be trained and validated using a training/validation API 710).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guillemette and DeSantola with Man to include operative for training the machine learning model based on user input. Doing so would provide the system with accurate warnings and alarms system that may be used to deter safety violations, corruption, and inefficiencies in using mechanical equipment, industrial materials, and other resources. [0047].
Claims 5, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Guillemette in view of DeSantola, as applied in claims 1 and 7, and further in view of Christian Frey (US 20190376838 A1, hereinafter “Frey”).
Claims 5/11
Guillemette teaches:
The process monitoring system as claimed in claim 7, the subset of the one or more devices , one or more persons and/or one or more materials being further equipped with at least one other sensor separately, the at least one other sensor being sensor type other than position sensor([0035]The personnel token 40 has a combination of an inertial navigational system (INS) 42, a GPS module 44, a barometer 46, a compass 38, an acoustic sensor 48, an angular velocity sensor 49, a magnetometer 50, and one or more wireless device 26), the at least one other sensor being able to wirelessly communicate with the process monitoring system([0035] the personnel token 40 transmits information to the server 28,) , the process monitoring system further being operative for: obtaining other sensed information detected by the at least one other sensor wirelessly the process([0049] One or more event identifiers 104 is also presented on the 3D environment 98 to draw attention to particular conditions.. Another event identifier 104 signifies an injury or near accident 106, which can be represented by a yellow triangle, red exclamation point, or the like. The near accident 106 event occurs when one worker 52 gets within a predetermined proximity of a hazardous condition, another worker 52 or construction equipment 60. The near accident 106 can also occur with construction equipment 60 that is damaged or comes within a predetermined proximity of a hazardous condition or another construction equipment. The near accident 106 can also be determined based on dramatic changes in collected data from the equipment tracking system 16 related to speed, acceleration, rotation, orientation, or noise);
While Guillemette teaches in [0035] the personnel token 40 has a combination of an inertial navigational system (INS) 42, a GPS module 44, a barometer 46, a compass 38, an acoustic sensor 48, an angular velocity sensor 49, a magnetometer 50, and one or more wireless device 26 and in [0049] one or more event identifiers 104 is also presented on the 3D environment 98 to draw attention to particular conditions. Another event identifier 104 signifies an injury or near accident 106, which can be represented by a yellow triangle, red exclamation point, or the like. The near accident 106 event occurs when one worker 52 gets within a predetermined proximity of a hazardous condition, another worker 52 or construction equipment 60. The near accident 106 can also occur with construction equipment 60 that is damaged or comes within a predetermined proximity of a hazardous condition or another construction equipment. The near accident 106 can also be determined based on dramatic changes in collected data from the equipment tracking system 16 related to speed, acceleration, rotation, orientation, or noise. Guillemette does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of tracking and monitoring system, Frey teaches:
the generating of one or more heat maps further comprises: generating the one or more heat maps based on the obtained other sensed information ([0033] communicate the noise level information and the location data to a computer system S; a computer system S for collecting and analyzing the received noise level information and the corresponding location data; wherein the computer system is configured to provide a noise heat map of the building).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guillemette and DeSantola with Frey to include the generating of one or more heat maps further comprises: generating the one or more heat maps based on the obtained other sensed information. Doing so would improve the worksite monitoring system by allowing management to visualize where noise of sound-related conditions occur within the monitored site. [0033].
Claims 15/16
Guillemette teaches:
The process monitoring system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the at least one other sensor is one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, vibration sensor, temperature sensor, sound sensor and light sensor([0035] the personnel token 40 has a combination of an inertial navigational system (INS) 42, a GPS module 44, a barometer 46, a compass 38, an acoustic sensor 48, an angular velocity sensor 49, a magnetometer 50, and one or more wireless device 26. ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Timothy Zeyl (US 20180182136 A1): A system and method for visualization of a compute workflow are provided. Workflow data indicative of one or more jobs executed in each computation stage of each instance of the compute workflow and job data indicative of one or more tasks executed by each of the one or more jobs are obtained. Each of the one or more tasks is associated with a corresponding computation stage. For each instance of the compute workflow, a visual representation of a resource utilization over time of each of the one or more tasks executed in each computation stage is generated. The visual representation is rendered for multiple instances of the compute workflow on a common timeline.
Ziyad Alsahlawi (US 20210176601 A1): A worksite safety tracking system includes at least one network comprising a plurality of communicatively coupled electronic devices and at least one mobile tracking device communicatively coupled to the network. Alerts are generated by the network based on locations of the tracking device within the worksite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights