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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the limitation “claims” should be deleted and replaced with claim. The limitation has been treated as claim for the purpose of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) is/are: a movement information acquisition section, an estimation section, and an output section; a posture sequence generating section, a segment sequence generating section in claim, a setting section; a motion vector sequence calculation section, a cluster section, in claims 1, 2, and 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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 it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Under the 35 U.S.C. 101 subject matter eligibility the 2019 guidance provides the following framework for analyzing the claims:
Step 1: whether the claimed subject matter is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A (prong 1): If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Step 2A (prong 2): If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are considered to be in a statutory category (machine, process, and manufacture respectively).
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Applying step 2A (prong 1) addresses whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea of: acquiring movement information relating to a movement of a worker when performing a predetermined series of tasks; estimating a start point and an end point of a task cycle of the worker based on the movement information; and outputting the estimated start point and end point of the task cycle.
The recited limitations identified above under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and /or opinion, but for the recitation of generic processor/computer components. That
is, other than reciting the processor or computer components, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the human mind with or without a machine/apparatus. Acquiring movement information relating to a movement of a worker when performing a predetermined series of tasks; estimating a start point and an end point of a task cycle of the worker based on the movement information; and outputting the estimated start point and end point of the task cycle. What this means is that a person capable of observing movement of a worker while performing predetermined tasks, may estimate the initiation point and the end point of a task cycle of the worker based on the movement information, and show the estimated points. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic processor/computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A (Prong (2) :
Step 2A (prong 2) addresses whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. As claimed, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The relevant question under Step 2A (prong 2) is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, it is clear that applicant's claim docs not comprise any additional elements that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Since the claim is implemented on an apparatus or computer components and there are no further limitations or structural elements that go beyond the apparatus/ computer components, it can clearly be seen that the abstract idea of acquiring movement information relating to a movement of a worker when performing a predetermined series of tasks; estimating a start point and an end point of a task cycle of the worker based on the movement information; and outputting the estimated start point and end point of the task cycle, merely implemented in an apparatus/components. Please note, according to the USPTO released new examination guidelines dated January 7, 2019, for determining whether a claim is directed to non -statutory subject matter, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize exception.
It is clear that applicant's claims do not comprise any of the above additional elements that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Step 2B addresses whether the claim has additional elements that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and form an inventive concept. applicant's claim does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. At least
the claims require a processor or computer components in terms of means which is claimed to perform its basic functions of at least acquiring movement information relating to a movement of a worker when performing a predetermined series of tasks; estimating a start point and an end point of a task cycle of the worker based on the movement information; and outputting the estimated start point and end point of the task cycle. The recitation of a processor or computer components limitations amount to a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a system/apparatus. Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 13 are not patent eligible.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radwin, et al. (US 2020/0279102 A1). Please note, due to the very broad formulation of claims 1, 12, and 13 their subject matter is disclosed by a plurality of documents. For procedural efficiency, the examiner has only applied the reference to Radwin, et al.
With regard to claim 1, Radwin, et al. disclose a task cycle estimation device (See for example, Figs. 1-3) comprising: a movement information acquisition section, i.e., tracking and monitoring system, that acquires movement information relating to a movement of a worker when performing a predetermined series of tasks (See for example, paragraph 0072; and Fig. 1); an estimation section, i.e., controller, that estimates a start point and an end point of a task cycle of the worker based on the movement information (See for example, paragraph 0006; and Fig. 3); and an output section, i.e., output, that outputs the estimated start point and end point of the task cycle (See for example, paragraph 0079; and Fig. 3). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 1 is met.
Claim 12 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 12 is a method claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected the same as claim 12. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 12 is applicable to claim 13. Claim 13 distinguishes from claim 12 only in that it recites a non-transitory recording medium storing a task cycle estimation program. Fortunately, Radwin, et al. (See for example, paragraph 0018; and 0081) teach this feature.
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.
Claims 2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radwin, et al. ‘102 in view of Gaglio, et al. (Human Activity Recognition Process Using 3-D Posture Data).
With regard to claim 2, Radwin, et al. (hereinafter “Radwin”) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 11, and incorporated herein by reference. Radwin further determines posture data of the subject/worker performing a particular task (See for example, paragraphs 0105-0108), and OPENPOSE software that may be capable of estimating 2D coordinates of skeletal joints (See for example, paragraph 0143). a posture sequence generating section that, based on the movement information, generates a posture sequence relating to a change in posture based on a skeleton of the worker, the posture sequence excluding information that is unique to the worker; a segment sequence generating section that generates, for each specific posture, a segment sequence in which the posture sequence is divided into a plurality of segments so that each segment includes a specific posture once; and a setting section that sets, as the start point and the end point of each task cycle, a beginning and an end of each segment included in a segment sequence having a highest degree of similarity between segments, among the plurality of segment sequences generated for each specific posture. However, Gaglio, et al. (See for example, Section III, subsections A-B, pp. 588-590: Some noisy joints that are redundant (i.e., wrists, ankles) due to their closeness to other joints (i.e., hands, feet) or not relevant at all for activity recognition (i.e., spine, neck, hip and shoulders) have been discarded, i.e., the posture sequence excluding information that is unique to the worker) teach these features. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Gaglio, et al. into the system of Radwin, and to do so would at least allow the generation of posture sequence based on relevant skeletal sequence of joints as a result of various activities performed by a user (See for example, Figs. 2-3). occupancy maps of the patches using segments of border points of patches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Radwin with Gaglio, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With regard to claim 9, The task cycle estimation device according to claim 2, wherein the posture sequence is a sequence of postures based on the skeleton of an upper body and a lower body of the worker (See for example, Figs. 2 and 3 of Gaglio, et al.).
With regard to claim 10, The task cycle estimation device according to claim 2, wherein the posture sequence generating section generates a posture sequence excluding an effect of camera viewpoint (this feature reads on some noisy joints that are redundant (i.e., wrists, ankles) due to their closeness to other joints (i.e., hands, feet) or not relevant at all for activity recognition (i.e., spine, neck, hip and shoulders) have been discarded (See for example, Section III, subsection A, paragraph 6 of Gaglio, et al.).
With regard to claim 11, The task cycle estimation device according to claim 2, wherein the posture sequence generating section generates a skeleton sequence of the worker based on the movement information, and generates the posture sequence after performing at least one of interpolating processing or smoothing, i.e., normalizing and/or discarding noise and/or irrelevant activities, processing with respect to the generated skeleton sequence (See for example, Section III, subsection A, paragraphs 6-8, page 589 of Gaglio, et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if applicant overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 102, and rewrite claims 3-8 in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication Numbers: 2019/0290202 (See for example, paragraphs 0004, 0034, 0275; and Figs. 9 and 20-21) and 2023/0031390 (Figs. 3-8 and the associated text); and Japanese Patent No. JP2021077230 A (See for example, page 4, paragraph 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights