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 .
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 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 9 recite a posture evaluation device and method, which are both within a statutory category of invention, to “calculate postured features of the subject,” and “evaluate the posture of the subject by comparing the posture features of the subject… and posture features corresponding to reference postures”, which falls into the category of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because with regard to Revised step 2A, prong 1, an exception is present as noted above and with regard to Revised step 2A, prong 2, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, with regard to Revised step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In particular, “obtaining information regarding locations of body parts of the subject” is merely directed towards a generalized data gathering step with no specific structure required to collect the data and no positively claimed step of measuring the data using a specific structure. Additionally, the limitation of “outputting an evaluation result of evaluating the posture” would be considered general data processing and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. While claim 1 includes “a storage,” “an obtainer,” “a posture estimator,” and “an evaluator,” these limitations are all directed towards general structures that do not impose meaningful limitation onto the claim scope, as the limitations do not constitute use of the exception in the context of “a particular machine”. Claims 2 - 6 are directed towards the general processing of obtained data to identify postures and output an evaluation result and claims 7 and 8 relate to additional structures that are used in conjunction with but do not impact the manner of implementing the device of claim 1, and therefore are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
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.
Claims 1, 2, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US 20220020287 A1 - Cited by Applicant).
In regard to claims 1 and 9, Tanaka discloses a posture evaluation device (FIG. 2, component 100) and method to be executed by a computer, comprising a storage (FIG. 2, component 102) that stores reference postures and posture features used in the evaluation of a posture of a user (paragraph [0074]; FIG. 5), an obtainer that obtains information regarding locations of body parts of a subject (FIG. 2, component 1011; paragraph [0059]), a posture estimator that calculates posture features of a posture of the subject based on the information (FIG. 2, component 1012; component [0064]), and an evaluator (FIG. 1, components 1013 & 1014) that evaluates posture of the subject by classifying a posture of a user based on the calculated posture features (paragraph [0068]; FIG. 4) and compares the posture of the user to evaluation data (FIG. 2, component 102B) in order to determine and output an evaluation result (FIG. 7, components S14 & S16) such as an evaluation value indicating the desirability of a posture (paragraph [0076]) or whether the posture is good or bad (paragraph [0070]).
In regard to claim 2, Tanaka discloses the invention of claim 1. Tanaka further discloses that reference postures, posture features corresponding to the reference postures, and evaluation scores corresponding to the reference postures are stored in advance in the storage (paragraphs [0073] - [0075]; FIG. 5). Tanaka additionally discloses that the evaluator (FIG. 1, components 1013 & 1014) identifies a reference posture corresponding to the posture of the subject that has been calculated (FIG. 7, component S13; paragraph [0089]) and outputs, as the evaluation result, an evaluation score corresponding to the reference posture (FIG. 7, components S14 & S16; paragraphs [0082] & [0090] which specify that the evaluation value may be output to the user).
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.
Claims 3 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20220020287 A1 - Cited by Applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jarvis (US 20200365266 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 20120221578 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Tanaka discloses the invention of claim 1 and further discloses that reference postures, posture features corresponding to the reference postures, and evaluation scores corresponding to the reference postures are stored in advance in the storage (paragraphs [0073] - [0075]; FIG. 5). Tanaka further discloses that the evaluator (FIG. 1, components 1013 & 1014) identifies a reference posture corresponding to the posture of the subject that has been calculated (FIG. 7, component S13; paragraph [0089]) and outputting an evaluation result (FIG. 7, component S16; paragraph [0082]). While Tanaka discusses an interest in using time data to determine when to output a recommendation to a user, such as outputting an evaluation result for a less desirable posture with a lower evaluation score after a shorter amount of time versus outputting an evaluation result of a more desirable posture with a higher evaluation score after a longer amount of time, they do not specify outputting an evaluation result where the evaluation result is an accumulated value obtained by multiplying an evaluation score by an accumulated time indicating a period over which the posture of the subject is maintained.
However, Jarvis teaches a system and method for providing posture feedback based on motion data that includes generating an evaluation result or score associated with one or more postures of the subject that includes the use of additional posture-related information such as the length of time a posture is held for where one or more posture scores are based on the aggregated information (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Tanaka with the teaching of Jarvis that a generated score or evaluation result that corresponds to a user’s posture can include the incorporation of the length of time that a posture is held for because Tanaka already discusses including temporal information to influence an output of the posture evaluation device such that modifying the device of Tanaka with the teaching that an evaluator generates a posture score based on the recognized posture and the time the posture is held for would be considered combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of generating a posture evaluation score.
While Jarvis teaches that the length of time that a posture is held for is utilized to generate an evaluation result, they do not specify that the evaluation result is an accumulated value obtained by multiplying an evaluation score by an accumulated time over which the posture of the subject is maintained.
However, Kim teaches a method and apparatus for generating an evaluation score where a position of the eye is multiplied by a time period during which the position of the eye is maintained (paragraph [0054]). Examiner notes that while the method and apparatus taught by Kim is directed towards evaluating the attention of a user on a web page, the teaching of Kim are relevant to the invention disclosed by Tanaka as modified by Jarvis, which is directed towards evaluating a posture of a user, because both Kim and Tanaka as modified by Jarvis are similarly interested in scoring a stationary position and incorporating the amount of time that the user is stationary into the generated score.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the system disclosed by Tanaka as modified by Jarvis, which includes evaluating a posture by generating an evaluation result or score that incorporates the length of time that a position is held by a user, with the teaching of Kim that an evaluation score can be determined by multiplying a position by the length of time that the position is held for because Jarvis already discusses incorporating the amount of time that a posture is held for into an evaluation result such that modifying the invention disclosed by Tanaka as modified by Jarvis with the teaching of Kim that an evaluation result is determined by multiplying a position and time period that a position is maintained would be considered combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of generating a posture evaluation score.
In regard to claim 4, Tanaka as modified discloses the invention of claim 4. Tanaka further discloses that the evaluator outputs an evaluation result after a predetermined period of time which is a fixed value or unit period over which the evaluation of the posture is performed (paragraph [0117]; FIG. 7, component S16).
Claims 5 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20220020287 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jarvis (US 20200365266 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Tanaka discloses the invention of claim 1. Tanaka further discloses that reference postures, posture features corresponding to the reference postures, and reference scores and functions corresponding to the reference postures are stored in advance in the storage (paragraphs [0056], & [0073] - [0075]; FIG. 5). Tanaka further discloses that the evaluator (FIG. 1, components 1013 & 1014) identifies a reference posture corresponding to the posture of the subject that has been calculated (FIG. 7, component S13; paragraph [0089]) and outputting an evaluation result (FIG. 7, component S16; paragraph [0082]). While Tanaka discusses an interest in using time data to determine when to output a recommendation to a user, such as outputting an evaluation result for a less desirable posture with a lower evaluation score after a shorter amount of time versus outputting an evaluation result of a more desirable posture with a higher evaluation score after a longer amount of time, they do not specify that the function stored in the storage is a function for decreasing the reference scores according to a length of an accumulated time indicating a period over which the posture is maintained or using a reference score and a function to output an accumulated value of the reference score for the accumulated time where the reference score is decreased according to the function.
However, Jarvis teaches a system and method for providing posture feedback based on motion data that includes generating a score associated with one or more postures of the subject that includes the use of additional posture-related information such as the length of time a posture is held for where the processor may modify at least one or more score by reducing the scores (paragraph [0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the calculations performed by the evaluator would constitute a mathematical function, where the instructions for performing the method are stored in the storage or memory of the device (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Tanaka with the teaching of Jarvis that a generated reference score that corresponds to a user’s posture for an accumulated time can be determined by using a reference score and a function, where the reference score is decreased according to the function because Tanaka already discusses including temporal information to influence an output of the posture evaluation device such that modifying the device of Tanaka with the teaching that an evaluator generates an output based on the reference score and a function that decrease the reference score according to a length of an accumulated time would be considered combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of generating and outputting a reference score.
In regard to claim 6, Tanaka as modified discloses the invention of claim 5. Tanaka further discloses that the evaluator outputs an evaluation result after a predetermined period of time which is a fixed value or unit period over which the evaluation of the posture is performed (paragraph [0117]; FIG. 7, component S16).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20220020287 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horseman (US 20130012788 A1).
In regard to claim 7, Tanaka discloses the invention of claim 1. While Tanaka discusses installation locations within buildings to monitor a user (paragraph [0043]) and more specifically discusses an interest in evaluating a user during activities such as desk work (paragraph [0103]; FIG. 3), they do not specify the use of a private booth that comprise partitions that define a space that accommodates a subject.
However, Horseman teaches a system for monitoring and improving biometric health of employees including monitoring body position and posture of a user (paragraph [0074]) where testing takes place in a cubicle (paragraph [0083]), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize inherently includes partitions to define a space that accommodates a subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system disclosed by Tanaka, which includes the posture evaluation device of claim 1, with the teaching of Horseman that posture evaluation can take place in a space with partitions that define the space that accommodates the subject, such as a cubicle, because Tanaka already discusses the installation of the evaluation device within a building and monitoring a user during desk work such that modifying the invention disclosed by Tanaka with the teaching of Horseman would be considered combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of evaluating a user’s posture during normal activities such as working at a desk.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20220020287 A1) in view of Horseman (US 20130012788 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sculley (US 9921726 B1).
In regard to claim 8, Tanaka as modified discloses the invention of claim 7. Horseman further teaches that the private booth or cubicle further comprises furniture to be used by the subject in the space (Horseman, FIG. 4 shows a desk and office chair). While Tanaka discloses outputting a result or notification to a user (FIG. 7, components S14 & S16) such as an evaluation value indicating the desirability of a posture (paragraph [0076]) or whether the posture is good or bad (paragraph [0070]) and Horseman further teaches outputting a result or notification regarding the evaluated posture to a user (FIG. 13B), neither Tanaka or Horseman discuss that the notification is performed by causing displacement of the furniture.
However, Sculley teaches a smart workstation method and system that assesses a user’s posture (FIG. 56, component 1702) and automatically adjusts a chair to adjust the user’s posture based on the results of the assessment (FIG. 56, component 1706).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the system disclosed by Tanaka as modified by Horseman, which includes office chairs in an enclosed booth or cubicle, with the teaching of Sculley that the provided furniture can be automatically adjusted or displaced based on the assessment of a user’s posture, because Horseman already discusses the presence of an office chair in the cubicle and both Tanaka and Horseman art interested in improving a user’s posture such that modifying the system of Tanaka as modified by Horseman with the teaching of Sculley that includes the displacement of furniture in accordance with the evaluation result would be considered prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of evaluating a user’s posture and attempting to address bad posture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIENNA CHRISTINE PYLE whose telephone number is (703)756-5798. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5:30 pm M - T; Off first Fridays; 8 am - 4 pm second Fridays.
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, Charles Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/S.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights