DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed October 28, 2024. Claims 1–9 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 9 recite an element to “estimate a position and an orientation of the object” in the element reciting “an object position/orientation estimating unit”. However, claims 1 and 9 subsequently recite elements “to extract an object model having a same shape as the object having the position and the orientation estimated”, “plot the extracted object model in a virtual space at the position and the orientation estimated”, and “analyze an interrelationship between the body model and the object model based on a position of the body model and the position and the orientation of the object model”.
Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite elements “to extract an object model having a same shape as the object having the position and the orientation
Claims 1 and 9 further recite elements to “extract an object model … and to plot the extracted object model” and “extract a body model … and to plot the extracted body model”. However, claims 1 and 9 subsequently recite “the body model” and “the object model” in the element reciting “an interrelationship analyzing unit”. Accordingly, Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite elements to “extract an object model … and to plot the
Claim 3 similarly recites “the extracted object model” in lines 2–3. Examiner recommends amending claim 3 to recite “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “the object model database” in the element reciting “an object model plotting unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, claims 1 and 9 are interpreted as reciting “[[the]] an object model database” in the element reciting “an object model plotting unit”.
In view of the above, claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–8, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–8 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a high simultaneous recognition probability” and “a higher priority”. The terms “high” and “higher” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “high” and “higher” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a position of the body model” in lines 3–4. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, previously recites “a position of the body model”. As a result, the scope of claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 3 to reference the recitation of claim 1 or intends to introduce a second, different “position of the body model”.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “[[a]] the position of the body model” in lines 3–4.
Claim 5 recites “an interrelationship stored in the behavior analysis database, the interrelationship being used”. However, claim 1 recites “an interrelationship between the body model and the object model”. As a result, the recitation of “the interrelationship” in claim 5 renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends to reference the “interrelationship stored in the behavior analysis database” or the “interrelationship between the body model and the object model”.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “an interrelationship stored in the behavior analysis database, the interrelationship stored in the behavior analysis database being used”.
Claim 5 further recites “an evaluation” in line 3 and lines 5–6. Examiner submits that the second recitation renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “evaluation”.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “a criterion of [[an]] the evaluation” in lines 5–6.
Claim 7 recites “a significant effect” in line 5. The term “significant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites “an object model” in the element reciting “compare an acceleration”. However, claim 8 previously recites “the object model”. As a result, the scope of claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “an object model” to reference the previous recitations or intends to introduce a second, different “object model”.
For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as reciting “[[an]] the object model” in the element reciting “compare an acceleration”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–9 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements “to estimate a movement of the worker based on the measurement data”; “to estimate a position and an orientation of the object based on the measurement data”; “to plot the extracted object model in a virtual space at the position and the orientation estimated”; “to plot the extracted body model in the virtual space in accordance with the movement estimated”; “to analyze an interrelationship between the body model and the object model based on a position of the body model and the position and the orientation of the object model plotted in the virtual space”; and “to output the interrelationship analyzed.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for analyzing a relationship between a worker and an object. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 9 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 9 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–8 further describe the process for analyzing a relationship between a worker and an object and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–8 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer including a processor device configured to execute predetermined processing and a storage device connected to the processor device, an input unit, a human movement estimating unit, an object position/orientation estimating unit, an object model plotting unit, a body model plotting unit, an interrelationship analyzing unit, an interrelationship output unit, an object model database, a body model database, and functions to “receive an input” and “extract” from a database. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 9 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 9 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 4 includes an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a behavior analysis database. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 4 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3 and 5–8 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3 and 5–8 depend. As a result, claims 2–3 and 5–8 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer including a processor device configured to execute predetermined processing and a storage device connected to the processor device, an input unit, a human movement estimating unit, an object position/orientation estimating unit, an object model plotting unit, a body model plotting unit, an interrelationship analyzing unit, an interrelationship output unit, an object model database, a body model database, and functions to “receive an input” and “extract” from a database. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 9 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 9 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 4 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a behavior analysis database. The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 4 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3 and 5–8 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3 and 5–8 depend. As a result, claims 2–3 and 5–8 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3–7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOVACH et al. (U.S. 2019/0080274) in view of OSAWA et al. (U.S. 2018/0374026).
Claims 1 and 9: Kovach discloses a behavior analysis system that analyzes an interrelationship between a worker and an object, the behavior analysis system comprising:
a computer including a processor device configured to execute predetermined processing and a storage device connected to the processor device (See FIG. 3), wherein the processor device includes:
an input unit (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 40–41, wherein the system executes applications and programs) configured to receive an input of measurement data collected from the worker and the object (See paragraphs 17 and 25, wherein an image capture system captures images of objects and workers within a facility);
a human movement estimating unit configured to estimate a movement of the worker based on the measurement data (See paragraphs 25–26 and 72, wherein worker movements and motions are detected);
an object position/orientation estimating unit configured to estimate a position of the object based on the measurement data (See paragraphs 25, 27, 63, and 72, wherein movement associated with tools, vehicles, and equipment is monitored to determine positions of objects);
an object model plotting unit configured to extract an object model having a same shape as the object having the position estimated, from the object model database (See paragraph 67, wherein object recognition processes identify an object by matching shapes/features of the object to known objects; see also FIG. 3 and paragraphs 49–50, wherein storage devices/components are disclosed as storing information related to the disclosed operations), and to plot the extracted object model in a virtual space at the position estimated by the object position/orientation estimating unit (See FIG. 1D and paragraphs 27–28, wherein identified objects are mapped with respect to the facility; see also paragraph 66);
a body model plotting unit configured to extract a body model of the worker having the movement estimated, from a body model database (See paragraphs 69–70, wherein worker recognition processes identify workers by matching features of the worker to known workers; see also FIG. 3 and paragraphs 49–50, wherein storage devices/components are disclosed as storing information related to the disclosed operations), and to plot the extracted body model in the virtual space in accordance with the movement estimated by the human movement estimating unit (See FIG. 1D and paragraphs 27–28, wherein identified workers are mapped with respect to the facility; see also paragraph 66);
an interrelationship analyzing unit configured to analyze an interrelationship between the body model and the object model based on a position of the body model and the position of the object model plotted in the virtual space (See paragraphs 72 and 78, in view of paragraphs 86–87 and 92, wherein activities are determined by measuring worker and object motions and distances, and wherein worker and object motion analytics are performed using the generated map; see also paragraph 21, wherein a threshold distance between a worker and an object is determined); and
an interrelationship output unit configured to output the interrelationship analyzed by the interrelationship analyzing unit (See paragraph 108, wherein a report is generated based on worker and object movements and proximities; see also FIG. 1D and paragraphs 27–28, wherein the map displays workers, objects, and activities). Although Kovach implicitly discloses estimating an orientation of the objection (See citations above), Kovach does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Osawa discloses an object position/orientation estimating unit configured to estimate a position and an orientation of the object based on the measurement data (See FIG. 7A–7B and paragraphs 61–62, wherein worker target position and orientation information is estimated in order to display line of sight directions to the worker, and wherein the displayed arrows indicate an orientation of the target object by displaying a relative position/direction, and FIG. 9 and paragraph 69, wherein directional arrows are further disclosed; see also FIG. 4 and paragraphs 51 and 53, wherein work target positioning information is determined relative to positional information associated with the worker and a worker line of sight)
Kovach discloses a system directed to tracking and analyzing workers, objects, and activities in a facility. Osawa discloses a system directed to assisting workers by monitoring worker movement and task target positioning information. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing work by monitoring workers and objects. The technique of utilizing object orientation is applicable to the system of Kovach as they both share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing work by monitoring workers and objects.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Osawa would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Osawa to the teachings of Kovach would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate work management using movement monitoring into similar systems. Further, applying objection orientation information to Kovach would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claim 3: Kovach discloses the behavior analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the object model plotting unit plots the extracted object model in the virtual space by using a position of the body model plotted by the body model plotting unit (See FIG. 1D and paragraphs 27–28, in view of paragraph 65, wherein identified objects are mapped relative to workers, objects, and activities; see also paragraph 66).
Claim 4: Kovach discloses the behavior analysis system according to claim 1, further comprising a behavior analysis database that stores the interrelationship analyzed by the interrelationship analyzing unit for each type of work (See FIG. 1D and paragraph 28, wherein analytics are monitored with respect to types of bays, and wherein a type of bay indicates a type of work; see also paragraphs 72 and 78, in view of paragraphs 86–87 and 92, wherein activities are determined by measuring worker and object motions and distances).
Claim 5: Kovach discloses the behavior analysis system according to claim 4, further comprising a work evaluating unit configured to make an evaluation of work by comparing an interrelationship stored in the behavior analysis database, the interrelationship being used as a criterion of an evaluation, with an interrelationship that is to be evaluated, resultant of an analysis performed by the interrelationship analyzing unit (See paragraphs 108 and 21, wherein proximity thresholds are used to evaluate work performance).
Claim 6: Kovach discloses the behavior analysis system according to claim 4, further comprising an analysis result presenting unit configured to present the interrelationship analyzed by the interrelationship analyzing unit (See FIG. 1D, wherein the map is generated). Although Kovach discloses presenting the interrelationship, Kovach does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Osawa discloses an analysis result presenting unit configured to present the interrelationship analyzed by the interrelationship analyzing unit to the worker (See FIG. 7A–7B and paragraphs 61–62, wherein worker target position and orientation information is estimated in order to display line of sight directions to the worker, and FIG. 9 and paragraph 69, wherein directional arrows are further disclosed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Osawa would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7: Kovach discloses the behavior analysis system according to claim 4, further comprising a cause analyzing unit that records a result of determining quality of work in the behavior analysis database, and extracts an interrelationship having a significant effect on the quality of work (See paragraph 77, wherein worker and object movements are analyzed to identify bottlenecks in the facility; see also paragraphs 87–88 and 92).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOVACH et al. (U.S. 2019/0080274) in view of OSAWA et al. (U.S. 2018/0374026), and in further view of Bronicki et al. (U.S. 2021/0374836).
Claim 2: As disclosed above, Kovach and Osawa disclose the elements of claim 1. Kovach and Osawa do not expressly disclose the elements of claim 2.
Bronicki discloses wherein the object model database records a simultaneous recognition probability between object models being stored, and the object position/orientation estimating unit extracts object models having a high simultaneous recognition probability recorded in the object model database, at a higher priority (See paragraphs 355–356, wherein product recognition models identify a plurality of possible products according to relative probability scores).
As disclosed above, Kovach discloses a system directed to tracking and analyzing workers, objects, and activities in a facility, and Osawa discloses a system directed to assisting workers by monitoring worker movement and task target positioning information. Bronicki discloses a system directed to managing product placements by monitoring worker and target locations. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing work by monitoring workers and objects. The technique of utilizing recognition probabilities is applicable to the systems of Kovach and Osawa as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing work by monitoring workers and objects.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Osawa would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Osawa to the teachings of Kovach and Osawa would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate work management using movement monitoring into similar systems. Further, applying recognition probabilities to Kovach and Osawa would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WALLGREN (U.S. 2025/0282040) discloses a system directed to displaying a model of an object based on an operator view;
SHOBU et al. (U.S. 2022/0019949) discloses a system directed to managing workplace safety by monitoring worker and machine movements;
SASAKI et al. (U.S. 2023/0052765) discloses a system directed to generating work target images based on positional information; and
Peterson (U.S. 2019/0087544) discloses a system directed to generating a three-dimensional rendering of a task space by monitoring item position information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights