DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 23 January 2026.
Claims 1, 19, and 24 have been amended.
Claims 17-18 and 29-30 have been cancelled.
Claims 31-33 have been added..
Claims 1-16, 19-28, and 31-33 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not a mental process or mathematical concept, the Examiner notes that assessing worker alertness/tiredness/fatigue is a function that co-workers, managers, supervisors, health and safety inspectors, etc. have traditionally performed/provided for workers by manually observing them work and instantiating breaks or other actions based upon observing the worker become tired or fatigued. Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., assessing worker alertness/tiredness/fatigue) to a particular technological environment (i.e., with generic computing components which simply collected data via sensors). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, The “a wearable device; a monitoring system; the wearable device communicatively connected to the monitoring system; wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn by a worker during a work shift; wherein the wearable device includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor; wherein the wearable device is configured to communicate windows of motion data recorded by the motion sensor to the monitoring system” are all additional elements that perform insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities. Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using a monitoring system to perform the steps. The monitoring system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of basic arithmetic and plotting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using monitoring system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the “a wearable device; a monitoring system; the wearable device communicatively connected to the monitoring system; wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn by a worker during a work shift; wherein the wearable device includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor; wherein the wearable device is configured to communicate windows of motion data recorded by the motion sensor to the monitoring system” in the step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO). As such, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection not overcome.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but are moot on grounds of new rejections, as necessitated by amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/176,748 further in view of Pathangay et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0223743). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct as shown below:
18/918,341
18/176,748
1. A system for evaluating worker safety, comprising; a wearable device; a monitoring system; the wearable device communicatively connected to the monitoring system; wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn by a worker during a work shift; wherein the wearable device includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor; wherein the wearable device is configured to communicate windows of motion data recorded by the motion sensor to the monitoring system; wherein the monitoring system is configured to perform analytics on the motion data to assess fatigue of the worker wherein, in response to determining that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to automatically initiate one or more actions selected from: generating a control signal to operate a door lock and generating a control signal disable operation of a piece of equipment .
1. A system for evaluating worker safety, comprising; a plurality of wearable devices; a monitoring system communicatively connected to the plurality of wearable devices; wherein each of the plurality of wearable devices is configured to be worn by a respective one of a plurality of workers during a work shift; wherein each of the plurality of wearable devices includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor; wherein each of the plurality of wearable devices is configured to: record motion data from the motion sensor; identify instances when the recorded motion data satisfies a predetermined set of criteria; and in response to identifying an instance when the recorded motion data satisfies the predetermined set of criteria, communicating a portion of the recorded motion data to the monitoring system; wherein the monitoring system is configured to perform analytics on the portion of the recorded motion data received from the plurality of wearable devices; wherein the analytics performed by monitoring system is configured to determine if a safety event has occurred; .wherein in response to determining a safety event has occurred, the monitoring system is configured to trigger an alarm, flashing light, or other safety system in an area where the safety event occurred, thereby alerting others as to the event and in an attempt to prevent further injury or damage.
The independent claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/176,748 are not identical to the instant claim 1 but however claim the same inventive concept performing analytics on captured motion data by a wearable device worn by a worker during a work shift with motions sensors. Here, specifically, instant claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the 18/176,748 further in view of Pathangay. The claims differ in that instant claim 1 recites that the an automated action occur whereas claim 1 of the 18/176,748 recites that there is identification of instances where the recorded motion data satisfies a predetermined set of criteria and triggering an alarm instead of an action (as highlighted in the table above). The portion of the specification in the 18/176,748 application that supports the recited automated action includes an embodiment that would anticipate instant claim 1 herein. One or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combined Pathangay’s ability to determine or generate a fatigue score overtime based upon the motion data recorded and predetermined sets of criteria thereof and claim 1 of the 18/176,748 would reasonably arrive at the instant claim 1. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because that embodiment is disclosed as being a preferred embodiment within claim 1 which teaches the ability to provide an automated action as well as teachings of Pathangay in order to ascertain a worker’s fatigue during a shift, as there exists a need to monitor alertness and fatigue of workers (Pathangay ¶5-¶6).
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 1-16, 19-28, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). The claims recite a system with devices, however, the claim(s) recite(s) evaluating worker safety by monitoring motion data of workers and analyzing said motion data which is an abstract idea of a mental process as well as a mathematical concept based upon observed human activities.
The limitations of ...
“wherein the monitoring system is configured to perform analytics on the motion data to assess fatigue of the worker, wherein, in response to determining that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to automatically initiate one or more actions selected from: generating a control signal to operate a door lock and generating a control signal disable operation of a piece of equipment” in claim 1
“wherein the monitoring system is configured to determine a power level exerted by the worker in each window of the motion data; wherein the monitoring system is configured to sort the determined power levels from highest to lowest to create a power curve; and wherein the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker based on the power curve wherein the monitoring system automatically initiates an action to mitigate the risk of accident when the power curve indicates the worker is becoming fatigued, wherein the action is selected from controlling a door lock, controlling operation of at least one piece of equipment, and requiring the worker to rest” in claim 19
“wherein the monitoring system is configured to perform analytics on the motion data to assess fatigue of the worker; and a status board configured to display an indicator representative of the worker as they work at a workstation; wherein in response to determining that the worker while working at the workstation is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to cause the status board to display a visual indicator warning that the worker is becoming fatigued” in claim 31
...as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “the monitoring system is configured to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or from the mathematical concept grouping. For example, but for the “the monitoring system is configured to” language, “perform analytics” “determine a power level,” “sort the determined power levels,” “assess fatigue...” “initiate one or more actions...” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assessing user motion data based upon determined power curves and intervening accordingly which is a mental process/judgement as well as mathematical concepts of simple arithmetic and plotting of data visually. However, if possible, the Examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical concept, while some of the limitations may be performed in the mind after certain limitations are performed, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The “a wearable device; a monitoring system; the wearable device communicatively connected to the monitoring system; wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn by a worker during a work shift; wherein the wearable device includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor; wherein the wearable device is configured to communicate windows of motion data recorded by the motion sensor to the monitoring system” are all additional elements that perform insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities. Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using a monitoring system to perform the steps. The monitoring system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of basic arithmetic and plotting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using monitoring system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the “a wearable device; a monitoring system; the wearable device communicatively connected to the monitoring system; wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn by a worker during a work shift; wherein the wearable device includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor; wherein the wearable device is configured to communicate windows of motion data recorded by the motion sensor to the monitoring system” in the step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-10 and 20-23 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including additional mathematical concepts (further limiting the power level/curve, sorting) which are still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 19, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 11-16, 24-28, and 32-33 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including displaying of outputs of the abstract idea and communicating prompts to users based upon the output of the abstract idea which are not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 19, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-16, 19-28, and 31-33 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pathangay et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0223743) and further in view of Barak et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0193341).
As per claim 1, Pathangay discloses a system for evaluating worker safety, comprising (system, Pathangay ¶10);
a wearable device (wearable sensors, Pathangay ¶75; computing unit, display, Fig. 5A);
a monitoring system (the processor 101 may generate the team fatigue score using the fatigue score of all the plurality of subjects 301. The computing unit may further comprise an alert system for generating an alarm. Also, the exemplary computing unit 100 to monitor health condition of plurality of subjects 301 may be connected to a display (not shown in the FIG. 3B) for displaying a team's fatigue information. Here, the team means the plurality of subjects, whose health condition is monitored by the computing unit 100. In some embodiment, the fatigue information of each subject or worker may be displayed on a display 201 by the computing unit as shown in FIG. 4B. The FIG. 4B illustrates fatigue chart of plurality of workers separately, displayed on an associated display of the computing unit 100 in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure, Pathangay ¶58);
the wearable device communicatively connected to the monitoring system (physiological signals transmitted, Pathangay ¶59);
wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn by a worker during a work shift (shift work, Pathangay ¶3; worn by workers, ¶75);
wherein the wearable device includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor (wearable sensors, Pathangay ¶29 and ¶75; computing unit, display, Fig. 5A) (Examiner notes the wearable sensors to detect and measure activity as types of motions sensors);
wherein the wearable device is configured to communicate windows of motion data recorded by the motion sensor to the monitoring system (at periodic time intervals determines work type of the subject as the activity of the subject may change over the period of time, Pathangay ¶40);
wherein the monitoring system is configured to perform analytics on the motion data to assess fatigue of the worker (Upon detecting the work type and assigning the work type to each of the plurality of sensors, the processor 101 may generate a fatigue score using the fatigue value obtained from the physiological signals and the weight of the plurality of sensors. The fatigue score indicates the health condition of the subject. After determining the health condition of the subject, the processor 101 may display the fatigue score on the associated display unit 203, Pathangay ¶50);
While Pathangay does discloses the ability to chart worker fatigue (Pathangay Fig. 4A-Fig. 4B), Pathangay does not expressly disclose wherein, in response to determining that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to automatically initiate one or more actions selected from: generating a control signal to operate a door lock and generating a control signal disable operation of a piece of equipment.
However, Barak teaches wherein, in response to determining that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to automatically initiate one or more actions selected from: generating a control signal to operate a door lock and generating a control signal disable operation of a piece of equipment (Real-time intervention—system 100 may detect that a change to the operating environment or a control indicator is not as expected (e.g., machine operational status, weather, other tasks, worker specific risk profile) or a combination of factors creates a risk score that is unacceptable. Thereafter, system 100 may initiate a remedial action, such as triggering real-time alerts, preventing the task from being performed by shutting down connected machines, or making the task paused or locked, Barak ¶47; System 100 may also determine if a worker may be tired, ill, under a restrictive diet or medication, under emotional stress, suffering from allergies, or just not accustomed to the task or environment such as the weather condition. In another embodiment, the safety-related information may include information about location of the task, ¶53).
Both the Pathangay and the Barak references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker safety. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Barak’s ability to take automatic action in Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that with the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT), many workplaces, are able to obtain a large amount of data monitoring different aspects in the workplace. Nevertheless, collecting all this data will not end personal accidents and process accidents, because current safety systems do not sufficiency account for the human factor. Moreover, current safety systems always provide static instructions to employees while their tasks are dynamic in nature and the risk keep changes. Consequently, current safety systems fail to identify and address hazards before preventable accidents occur (Barak ¶5).
As per claim 11, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses wherein in response to identifying that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to initiate one or more actions to mitigate the risk of accident or injury due to fatigue of the worker (alert, caution, force-stop, Pathangay ¶52).
As per claim 12, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses further comprising a status board; the status board configured to display workers currently working at a workstation; wherein in response to determining that one of the workers currently working at the workstation is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to cause the status board to display a visual indicator warning that the worker is becoming fatigued (estimates of the team fatigue risk at periodic intervals to produce the team risk fatigue chart, Pathangay ¶52; The computing unit 100 transmits fatigue information 203 such as, but not limited to, fatigue score, time for which the subject has performed a task for generating fatigue score and number of subjects for which fatigue score is generated, to the display unit 201. The display unit 201 displays the fatigue information, as received from the computing device 100. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the display unit, including but not limited to, cathode ray tube display (CRT), Light-emitting diode display (LED), Plasma display panel (PDP), Liquid crystal display (LCD) and Organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) may be used, ¶41).
As per claim 13, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses further comprising a status board; the status board configured to display workers currently working at a workstation; wherein the status board is configured to receive determined fatigue levels from the monitoring system for the workers currently working at the workstation; wherein the status board is configured to display the determined fatigue levels for the workers currently working at the workstation (The computing unit 100 transmits fatigue information 203 such as, but not limited to, fatigue score, time for which the subject has performed a task for generating fatigue score and number of subjects for which fatigue score is generated, to the display unit 201. The display unit 201 displays the fatigue information, as received from the computing device 100. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the display unit, including but not limited to, cathode ray tube display (CRT), Light-emitting diode display (LED), Plasma display panel (PDP), Liquid crystal display (LCD) and Organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) may be used, Pathangay ¶41).
As per claim 15, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses wherein in response to identifying that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to communicate a prompt for the worker to switch to a different work assignment (alert, Pathangay ¶52; Using the trend in the team fatigue risk chart, the supervisor of the team may change or reschedule the worker-job assignments for the workers. The FIG. 4A illustrates a fatigue chart for plurality of subjects displayed on an associated display of the computing unit in accordance with some embodiment of the present disclosure, ¶56).
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that the type of prompt or alert is simply a label for the components and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of alert or prompt) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 2-10, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pathangay et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0223743) and Barak et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0193341), further in view of Elhawary et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0297250).
As per claim 2, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. While Pathangay does discloses the ability to chart worker fatigue (Pathangay Fig. 4A-Fig. 4B), the combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining power levels exerted by the worker from the motion data over time; and identifying when the worker is becoming fatigued based on the determined power levels exerted by the worker.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining power levels exerted by the worker from the motion data over time; and identifying when the worker is becoming fatigued based on the determined power levels exerted by the worker (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 3, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses the creating a power curve from the determined power levels; identifying when the worker is becoming fatigued based on the power curve (fatigue score over time, Pathangay ¶52, ¶58, and Fig. 4A-Fig. 4B). The combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining power levels exerted by the worker from the motion data.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining power levels exerted by the worker from the motion data (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 4, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses sorting the determined power levels from highest to lowest to create a power curve; and identifying when the worker is becoming fatigued based on the power curve (The processor 101 identifies the work type for the activity which has the highest output value. For example, if the input vector v is [20, 22, 70, 65, 40] based on the signals received from the five sensors placed on the worker, the processor 101 generates the outputs y.sub.1, y.sub.2 and y.sub.3 using the input vector v and the trained reference classifier models as mentioned above. If the values of y1, y2, and y3 are 70, 35 and 20 respectively, the processor compares the output values to determine y.sub.1 has the highest value and subsequently identifies the work type corresponding to y.sub.1 i.e. walking, Pathangay ¶38). The combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data.
Elhawary teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 5, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses sorting the determined power levels from highest to lowest to create a power curve; and identifying when the worker is becoming fatigued based on a comparison of the power curve to a baseline power curve for the worker (reference values for known types of work activities, Pathangay ¶47). The combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data; (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 6, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses sorting the determined power levels from highest to lowest to create a power curve; and identifying when the worker is becoming fatigued based on a comparison of the power curve to a threshold power level for the worker (maximum allowed fatigue score or a threshold fatigue score, Pathangay ¶52 and Fig. 4A-Fig. 4B). The combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
Both the Pathangay and the Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 7, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses sorting the determined power levels from highest to lowest to create a power curve; and identifying when the worker is becoming fatigued by assessing the power curve using a machine learning algorithm that is trained to identify from the power curve when the worker is becoming fatigued (The processor 101 identifies the work type for the activity which has the highest output value. For example, if the input vector v is [20, 22, 70, 65, 40] based on the signals received from the five sensors placed on the worker, the processor 101 generates the outputs y.sub.1, y.sub.2 and y.sub.3 using the input vector v and the trained reference classifier models as mentioned above. If the values of y1, y2, and y3 are 70, 35 and 20 respectively, the processor compares the output values to determine y.sub.1 has the highest value and subsequently identifies the work type corresponding to y.sub.1 i.e. walking, Pathangay ¶38; In some embodiments, the processor 101 of the computing unit 100 uses frequency domain representation of the EMG signals using one of a regression model or any other machine learning method, for mapping the EMG frequency components to fatigue level. Similarly, in other embodiments, physiological data from other sensors attached to the subject may be mapped to the fatigue level using one of trained regression model and any other machine learning method. The estimated fatigue values are stored in the memory of the computing unit 101 for further processing, ¶46). The combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data; (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 8, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Elhawary further teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by, for each window of motion data received during the work shift: determining a power level exerted by the worker in the window of the motion data; adding the determined power level to a set of power measurements; sorting the set of power measurements to create a power curve; and identifying when the worker is becoming fatigued based on the power curve (continuous monitoring, Elhawary ¶149; over windows, ¶170).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 9, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses adding the determined power level to a set of power measurements; sorting the set of power measurements to create a power curve; and performing analytics on the power curve to predict a set of future power measurements for the power curve; determining if the worker will become fatigued in the near future based on the set of future power measurements (the processor 101, at periodic time intervals determines work type of the subject as the activity of the subject may change over the period of time. Thus, in order to assign the weight dynamically the processor determines work type at regular intervals upon detecting work type for the first time". In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the computing unit 100 may comprise an alert system (not shown) for generating an alarm. The alarm may be generated if the fatigue score is substantially close to or greater than a predefined threshold fatigue score, Pathangay ¶40; predictive fatigue risk, ¶56). The combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by: determining a power level exerted by the worker in each window of motion data.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by, for each window of motion data received during the work shift: determining a power level exerted by the worker in the window of the motion data (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 10, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Pathangay further discloses adding the determined power level to a set of power measurements; sorting the set of power measurements to create a power curve; and performing analytics on the power curve to predict a set of future power measurements for the power curve; determining if the worker will become fatigued in the near future based on a comparison of the set of future power measurements to a baseline power curve (the processor 101, at periodic time intervals determines work type of the subject as the activity of the subject may change over the period of time. Thus, in order to assign the weight dynamically the processor determines work type at regular intervals upon detecting work type for the first time". In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the computing unit 100 may comprise an alert system (not shown) for generating an alarm. The alarm may be generated if the fatigue score is substantially close to or greater than a predefined threshold fatigue score, Pathangay ¶40; predictive fatigue risk, ¶56). The combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by, for each window of the motion data received during the work shift: determining a power level exerted by the worker in the window of the motion data.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein the analytics performed by the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker by, for each window of the motion data received during the work shift: determining a power level exerted by the worker in the window of the motion data (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
As per claim 14, Pathangay and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. While Pathangay discloses alerts, including a force stop (Pathangay ¶52), the combination of Pathangay and Barak do not expressly disclose wherein in response to identifying that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to communicate a prompt for the worker to take a break.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein in response to identifying that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to communicate a prompt for the worker to take a break (Generally, in such an embodiment, if frequency and/or magnitude of accumulated high risk motions is above a threshold, the device would then alert a worker for every high risk motion until the risk is reduced by either reduce the high risk motion, such as by changing posture, or by using assist equipment or resting, or by switching to a lower risk job function, Elhawary ¶152) (Examiner interprets the alerts to include resting as alerts to take a break).
The Pathangay, Barak and Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue/worker risk. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Barak and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that the type of prompt or alert is simply a label for the components and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of alert or prompt) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (MPEP 2144.04).
As per claim 16, Pathangay discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. While Pathangay discloses alerts (Pathangay ¶52), Pathangay does not expressly disclose wherein in response to identifying that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to communicate a prompt for the worker to relocate to a more comfortable work location.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein in response to identifying that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to communicate a prompt for the worker to relocate to a more comfortable work location (warning, elevated gas levels, Elhawary ¶216 and ¶237) (Examiner interprets warnings for elevated gas levels as warnings or prompts to relocate).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to provide detailed alerts in Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that the type of prompt or alert is simply a label for the components and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of alert or prompt) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 19-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pathangay et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0223743) further in view of Elhawary et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0297250) and Barak et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0193341).
As per claim 19, Pathangay discloses a system for evaluating worker safety, comprising (system, Pathangay ¶10);
a wearable device (wearable sensors, Pathangay ¶75; computing unit, display, Fig. 5A);
a monitoring system (the processor 101 may generate the team fatigue score using the fatigue score of all the plurality of subjects 301. The computing unit may further comprise an alert system for generating an alarm. Also, the exemplary computing unit 100 to monitor health condition of plurality of subjects 301 may be connected to a display (not shown in the FIG. 3B) for displaying a team's fatigue information. Here, the team means the plurality of subjects, whose health condition is monitored by the computing unit 100. In some embodiment, the fatigue information of each subject or worker may be displayed on a display 201 by the computing unit as shown in FIG. 4B. The FIG. 4B illustrates fatigue chart of plurality of workers separately, displayed on an associated display of the computing unit 100 in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure, Pathangay ¶58);
the wearable device communicatively connected to the monitoring system (physiological signals transmitted, Pathangay ¶59);
wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn by a worker during a work shift (shift work, Pathangay ¶3; worn by workers, ¶75);
wherein the wearable device includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor (wearable sensors, Pathangay ¶29 and ¶75; computing unit, display, Fig. 5A) (Examiner notes the wearable sensors to detect and measure activity as types of motions sensors);
wherein the wearable device is configured to communicate windows of motion data recorded by the motion sensor to the monitoring system (at periodic time intervals determines work type of the subject as the activity of the subject may change over the period of time, Pathangay ¶40);
wherein the monitoring system is configured to sort the determined power levels from highest to lowest to create a power curve (The processor 101 identifies the work type for the activity which has the highest output value. For example, if the input vector v is [20, 22, 70, 65, 40] based on the signals received from the five sensors placed on the worker, the processor 101 generates the outputs y.sub.1, y.sub.2 and y.sub.3 using the input vector v and the trained reference classifier models as mentioned above. If the values of y1, y2, and y3 are 70, 35 and 20 respectively, the processor compares the output values to determine y.sub.1 has the highest value and subsequently identifies the work type corresponding to y.sub.1 i.e. walking, Pathangay ¶38); and
wherein the monitoring system is configured to assess fatigue of the worker based on the power curve (Upon detecting the work type and assigning the work type to each of the plurality of sensors, the processor 101 may generate a fatigue score using the fatigue value obtained from the physiological signals and the weight of the plurality of sensors. The fatigue score indicates the health condition of the subject. After determining the health condition of the subject, the processor 101 may display the fatigue score on the associated display unit 203, Pathangay ¶50);
While Pathangay does discloses the ability to chart worker fatigue (Pathangay Fig. 4A-Fig. 4B), Pathangay does not expressly disclose wherein the monitoring system is configured to determine a power level exerted by the worker in each window of the motion data. wherein the monitoring system is configured to automatically initiates an action to mitigate the risk of accident when the power curve indicates the worker is becoming fatigued; and wherein the action is selected from requiring the worker to rest.
However, Elhawary teaches wherein the monitoring system is configured to determine a power level exerted by the worker in each window of the motion data; wherein the monitoring system is configured to automatically initiates an action to mitigate the risk of accident when the power curve indicates the worker is becoming fatigued; and wherein the action is selected from requiring the worker to rest (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276; windows, ¶170; Generally, in such an embodiment, if frequency and/or magnitude of accumulated high risk motions is above a threshold, the device would then alert a worker for every high risk motion until the risk is reduced by either reduce the high risk motion, such as by changing posture, or by using assist equipment or resting, or by switching to a lower risk job function, Elhawary ¶152) (Examiner notes Elhawary is teaching the determination of power which is energy exerted over time).
Both the Pathangay and the Elhawary references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker fatigue. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to evaluate energy exerted by workers over time (i.e. power) in Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
The combination of Pathangay and Elhawary do not expressly disclose
However, Barak teaches wherein the monitoring system is configured to automatically initiates an action to mitigate the risk of accident when the power curve indicates the worker is becoming fatigued; controlling a door lock, controlling operation of at least one piece of equipment and requiring the worker to rest (Real-time intervention—system 100 may detect that a change to the operating environment or a control indicator is not as expected (e.g., machine operational status, weather, other tasks, worker specific risk profile) or a combination of factors creates a risk score that is unacceptable. Thereafter, system 100 may initiate a remedial action, such as triggering real-time alerts, preventing the task from being performed by shutting down connected machines, or making the task paused or locked, Barak ¶47; System 100 may also determine if a worker may be tired, ill, under a restrictive diet or medication, under emotional stress, suffering from allergies, or just not accustomed to the task or environment such as the weather condition. In another embodiment, the safety-related information may include information about location of the task, ¶53).
The Pathangay, Elhawary, and the Barak references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with measuring and monitoring worker safety. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Barak’s ability to take automatic action in Elhawary and Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that with the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT), many workplaces, are able to obtain a large amount of data monitoring different aspects in the workplace. Nevertheless, collecting all this data will not end personal accidents and process accidents, because current safety systems do not sufficiency account for the human factor. Moreover, current safety systems always provide static instructions to employees while their tasks are dynamic in nature and the risk keep changes. Consequently, current safety systems fail to identify and address hazards before preventable accidents occur (Barak ¶5).
As per claim 20, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 19. Elhawary further teaches wherein the monitoring system is configured to identify when the worker has become fatigued based on the power curve (In some embodiments, fatigue of workers may be evaluated by estimating energy associated with motion of the worker. Fatigue affects risk and is typically incorporated into measurements in the form of lift rate, and in generating an effective weight lifted, as discussed above with respect to step 490. Fatigue may be further evaluated by monitoring average acceleration rates of the wrist and back of the worker over time, including during non-lifting activities, such as inventory checking or manufacturing processes. By detecting reductions in acceleration rates over time, such a method may then identify fatigue and determine potential and kinetic energies expected by a workers body, Elhawary ¶276).
As per claim 21, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak as shown above with respect to claim 19. Pathangay further discloses wherein the monitoring system is configured to identify when the worker will become fatigued in the near future based on the power curve (predictive fatigue risk, Pathangay ¶56).
As per claim 22, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 19. Pathangay further discloses wherein the monitoring system is configured to identify when the worker is becoming fatigued based on a comparison of the power curve to a baseline power curve for the worker (reference values for known types of work activities, Pathangay ¶47).
As per claim 23, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 19. Pathangay further discloses wherein the monitoring system is configured to identify when the worker is becoming fatigued by assessing the power curve using a machine learning algorithm that is trained to identify from the power curve when the worker is becoming fatigued (The processor 101 identifies the work type for the activity which has the highest output value. For example, if the input vector v is [20, 22, 70, 65, 40] based on the signals received from the five sensors placed on the worker, the processor 101 generates the outputs y.sub.1, y.sub.2 and y.sub.3 using the input vector v and the trained reference classifier models as mentioned above. If the values of y1, y2, and y3 are 70, 35 and 20 respectively, the processor compares the output values to determine y.sub.1 has the highest value and subsequently identifies the work type corresponding to y.sub.1 i.e. walking, Pathangay ¶38; In some embodiments, the processor 101 of the computing unit 100 uses frequency domain representation of the EMG signals using one of a regression model or any other machine learning method, for mapping the EMG frequency components to fatigue level. Similarly, in other embodiments, physiological data from other sensors attached to the subject may be mapped to the fatigue level using one of trained regression model and any other machine learning method. The estimated fatigue values are stored in the memory of the computing unit 101 for further processing, ¶46).
As per claim 24, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 19. Pathangay further discloses further comprising a status board; the status board configured to display an indicator representative of the worker as they work at a workstation; wherein in response to determine that the worker while working at the workstation is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to cause the status board to display a visual indicator warning that the worker is becoming fatigued (estimates of the team fatigue risk at periodic intervals to produce the team risk fatigue chart, Pathangay ¶52; The computing unit 100 transmits fatigue information 203 such as, but not limited to, fatigue score, time for which the subject has performed a task for generating fatigue score and number of subjects for which fatigue score is generated, to the display unit 201. The display unit 201 displays the fatigue information, as received from the computing device 100. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the display unit, including but not limited to, cathode ray tube display (CRT), Light-emitting diode display (LED), Plasma display panel (PDP), Liquid crystal display (LCD) and Organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) may be used, ¶41).
As per claim 25, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 19. Pathangay further discloses further comprising a status board; the status board configured to display an indicator representative of the worker as they work at a workstation; wherein the status board is configured to receive determined fatigue levels from the monitoring system for the worker while the worker is working at the workstation; wherein the status board is configured to display the determined fatigue levels for the worker as they work at the workstation (estimates of the team fatigue risk at periodic intervals to produce the team risk fatigue chart, Pathangay ¶52; The computing unit 100 transmits fatigue information 203 such as, but not limited to, fatigue score, time for which the subject has performed a task for generating fatigue score and number of subjects for which fatigue score is generated, to the display unit 201. The display unit 201 displays the fatigue information, as received from the computing device 100. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the display unit, including but not limited to, cathode ray tube display (CRT), Light-emitting diode display (LED), Plasma display panel (PDP), Liquid crystal display (LCD) and Organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) may be used, ¶41).
As per claim 26, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 19. Elhawary further teaches wherein in response to identifying that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to communicate a prompt for the worker to take a break (Generally, in such an embodiment, if frequency and/or magnitude of accumulated high risk motions is above a threshold, the device would then alert a worker for every high risk motion until the risk is reduced by either reduce the high risk motion, such as by changing posture, or by using assist equipment or resting, or by switching to a lower risk job function, Elhawary ¶152) (Examiner interprets the alerts to include resting as alerts to take a break).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to provide detailed alerts in Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that the type of prompt or alert is simply a label for the components and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of alert or prompt) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (MPEP 2144.04)
As per claim 27, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 19. Pathangay further discloses wherein in response to identifying that the worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to communicate a prompt for the worker to switch to a different work assignment (alert, Pathangay ¶52; Using the trend in the team fatigue risk chart, the supervisor of the team may change or reschedule the worker-job assignments for the workers. The FIG. 4A illustrates a fatigue chart for plurality of subjects displayed on an associated display of the computing unit in accordance with some embodiment of the present disclosure, ¶56).
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that the type of prompt or alert is simply a label for the components and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of alert or prompt) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (MPEP 2144.04).
As per claim 28, Pathangay, Elhawary, and Barak disclose as shown above with respect to claim 19. Elhawary further teaches wherein in response to identifying that a worker is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to communicate a prompt for the worker to relocate to a more comfortable work location (warning, elevated gas levels, Elhawary ¶216 and ¶237) (Examiner interprets warnings for elevated gas levels as warnings or prompts to relocate).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Elhawary’s ability to provide detailed alerts in Pathangay’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a worker fatigue management system that is able to analyze safety and productivity of workers.
The motivation being that there is a need for a fully automatable system and method that can monitor physical activity of individual workers and evaluate safety and productivity both for individuals and for a workspace as a whole. There is a further need for a platform that can incorporate such evaluations into recommendations for improving the technique of individual workers and physical characteristics of the workplace environment (Elhawary ¶18).
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that the type of prompt or alert is simply a label for the components and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of alert or prompt) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (MPEP 2144.04).
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.
Claim(s) 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pathangay et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0223743).
As per claim 31, Pathangay discloses a system for evaluating worker safety, comprising (system, Pathangay ¶10);
a wearable device; a monitoring system (wearable sensors, Pathangay ¶75; computing unit, display, Fig. 5A);
the wearable device communicatively connected to the monitoring system (physiological signals transmitted, Pathangay ¶59);
wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn by a worker during a work shift (shift work, Pathangay ¶3; worn by workers, ¶75);
wherein the wearable device includes one or more sensors; wherein the one or more sensors includes a motion sensor (wearable sensors, Pathangay ¶29 and ¶75; computing unit, display, Fig. 5A) (Examiner notes the wearable sensors to detect and measure activity as types of motions sensors);
wherein the wearable device is configured to communicate windows of motion data recorded by the motion sensor to the monitoring system (at periodic time intervals determines work type of the subject as the activity of the subject may change over the period of time, Pathangay ¶40);
wherein the monitoring system is configured to perform analytics on the motion data to assess fatigue of the worker (Upon detecting the work type and assigning the work type to each of the plurality of sensors, the processor 101 may generate a fatigue score using the fatigue value obtained from the physiological signals and the weight of the plurality of sensors. The fatigue score indicates the health condition of the subject. After determining the health condition of the subject, the processor 101 may display the fatigue score on the associated display unit 203, Pathangay ¶50); and
a status board configured to display an indicator representative of the worker as they work at a workstation (estimates of the team fatigue risk at periodic intervals to produce the team risk fatigue chart, Pathangay ¶52; The computing unit 100 transmits fatigue information 203 such as, but not limited to, fatigue score, time for which the subject has performed a task for generating fatigue score and number of subjects for which fatigue score is generated, to the display unit 201. The display unit 201 displays the fatigue information, as received from the computing device 100. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the display unit, including but not limited to, cathode ray tube display (CRT), Light-emitting diode display (LED), Plasma display panel (PDP), Liquid crystal display (LCD) and Organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) may be used, ¶41);
wherein in response to determining that the worker while working at the workstation is becoming fatigued, the monitoring system is configured to cause the status board to display a visual indicator warning that the worker is becoming fatigued (estimates of the team fatigue risk at periodic intervals to produce the team risk fatigue chart, Pathangay ¶52; The computing unit 100 transmits fatigue information 203 such as, but not limited to, fatigue score, time for which the subject has performed a task for generating fatigue score and number of subjects for which fatigue score is generated, to the display unit 201. The display unit 201 displays the fatigue information, as received from the computing device 100. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the display unit, including but not limited to, cathode ray tube display (CRT), Light-emitting diode display (LED), Plasma display panel (PDP), Liquid crystal display (LCD) and Organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) may be used, ¶41).
As per claim 31, Pathangay discloses as shown above with respect to claim 31. Pathangay further discloses wherein the status board is configured to receive determined fatigue levels from the monitoring system for the worker while the worker is working at the workstation; and wherein the status board is configured to display the determined fatigue levels for the worker as they work at the workstation (estimates of the team fatigue risk at periodic intervals to produce the team risk fatigue chart, Pathangay ¶52; The computing unit 100 transmits fatigue information 203 such as, but not limited to, fatigue score, time for which the subject has performed a task for generating fatigue score and number of subjects for which fatigue score is generated, to the display unit 201. The display unit 201 displays the fatigue information, as received from the computing device 100. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the display unit, including but not limited to, cathode ray tube display (CRT), Light-emitting diode display (LED), Plasma display panel (PDP), Liquid crystal display (LCD) and Organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) may be used, ¶41).
As per claim 33, Pathangay discloses as shown above with respect to claim 31. Pathangay further discloses wherein the status board is configured to receive determined fatigue levels from the monitoring system for the worker while the worker is working at the workstation and dynamically quantify a fatigue level for each worker and display and dynamically update a visual indicator representing the worker's determined fatigue level (estimates of the team fatigue risk at periodic intervals to produce the team risk fatigue chart, Pathangay ¶52; The computing unit 100 transmits fatigue information 203 such as, but not limited to, fatigue score, time for which the subject has performed a task for generating fatigue score and number of subjects for which fatigue score is generated, to the display unit 201. The display unit 201 displays the fatigue information, as received from the computing device 100. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the display unit, including but not limited to, cathode ray tube display (CRT), Light-emitting diode display (LED), Plasma display panel (PDP), Liquid crystal display (LCD) and Organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) may be used, ¶41).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629