Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the claims present a technological improvement to the accuracy of specified joint positions of a worker. Examiner disagrees. The improvement seems to be focused on joint identification, which itself is an abstract idea performed through observations and evaluations. There is no improvement to any technology. The use of image recognition is recited broadly and can be construed as an observation performed by a human. Even if the image recognition is performed by a computer this amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim presents steps wherein an image is observed and evaluated to assess worker joints and manipulate markers on the image which can be performed with pen/paper. The specification of work content is an evaluation based on the observations. There is no improvement to any technology. Applicant compares the claims to CardioNet which was found to focus on an improvement to computers as tools, however, the instant claims do not present an analogous improvement. In at least the method claim 10, the only limitation broadly reciting any technology is specifying by image recognition, positions of a plurality of joint and a terminal configured to present data which both amount to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not reflect this asserted improvement in computers or technology.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-11 is/are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes. More specifically, the independent method claim 10 recites: acquiring an image including a worker and a marker, the marker being attached to the worker and comprising a barcode, the barcode indicating an identifier unique to the worker; identifying the worker based on the identifier; specify, based on a position of the marker attached to the worker, a position of a joint of the worker; specify, by image recognition, positions of a plurality of joints of the worker from the image; replace, among the positions of the plurality of joints of the worker specified by the image recognition, a position indicating the same joint as the joint of the worker specified based on the position of the marker, with the position of the joint of the worker specified based on the position of the marker; specify work content on: at least one of the positions of the plurality of joints of the worker specified by image recognition, and the position of the joint of the worker specified based on the position of the marker; and output data including the identified worker and the specified work content that are linked to each other. These steps recite observations and evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or with pen and paper. The nominal recitation of a device in claim 1 and a system in claim 9 and image recognition in both does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include additional limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites a device comprising a memory and a process to execute instruction to perform the method and image recognition. Independent claim 9 recites a system comprising a camera to photograph a worker; memory and a processor to execute the abstract idea and image recognition and a terminal to present data. In both claims 1 and 9 the additional limitations amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Independent claim 10 recites image recognition, which can be construed as an observation/evaluation, an abstract idea, but even if performed by a computer only amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claim 2 recites steps to identifying a type of joint where the marker is attached. This step is additional observations and evaluations that are mental processes. One could practically view images and make the joint position determinations. The analysis device processor amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 6-8 describe the marker as a bar code, and a light. These limitations specify what types of marker are viewed in the image and merely add additional detail to the abstract observations and evaluations. There is no integration into a practical application. Dependent claim 11 recites outputting the data comprises displaying a graph which is an abstract mental process that can practically be performed with pen/paper.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and device claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: But for the rejections under 35 USC 101, the closest prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach Applicant’s invention. The closest prior art, cited by examiner, includes: Ogawa et al, US 2023/0069393. Applicant’s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). In this case, the substance of applicant’s remarks filed on June 30, 2026, pages 12-14, point out the reason claims are patentable over the Ogawa et al reference (see MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al, “Automatic real-time occupational posture evaluation and select corresponding ergonomic assessments” - In this study, the decision tree was developed to select the most appropriate assessment method according to the joint angles derived by OpenPose image process. Fifteen operation videos were tested and these videos can be classified into six types including maintenance, handling, assembly, cleaning, office work, and driving. The selected ergonomic assessment method by our developed decision tree in each condition are consistent with the recommendation of the Labour Research Institute. Moreover, the high-risk posture could be identified immediately and provide to the inspector for further evaluation on this posture rather than the whole operation period
Nussbaum et al, “Heuristics for locating upper extremity joint centres from a reduced set of surface markers” - Measurements of the translations and rotations of joints and segments are used either directly (e.g., to evaluate postures at a workstation) or as input for kinematic/kinetic analysis (e.g., to estimate joint forces and moments during gait or manual lifting). Critical to these applications is accurate localization of the joint centers of interest. Most modern studies determine joint center locations through either translation of surface markers strategically placed in order to reflect the position of an underlying joint, or through the use of clusters (n⩾3) of markers placed over adjacent segments
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights