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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --Work Safety Information Processing Device, Work Safety Processing Method, and Work Safety Processing Program--.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: specification unit and detection unit in Claim 1; specification step and detection step in Claims 9 & 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim language is not consistent in regards to the terms “work item” and “work load”.
Claim 1 recites “at least one of an item or a load of work”.
Claims 2-5 recite “the work item or the work load”.
Claims 6, 9-10 then recites the same limitation as Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggest “an item” be corrected to --work item-- and “load of work” be corrected to --work load--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-5 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 2-4 recite the limitation "the work item" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “at least one of an item” of which Claim 2-4 are dependent upon.
Claim 5 recites the same limitation in line 2 of the claim.
Claim 4 is also rejected for use of relative terminology . The term “serious harm” in Claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “serious harm” 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. The term “serious”, in Claim 4 is a term of degree and the claim does not provide an objective boundary by which one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what degree of harm constitutes “serious harm”. It is unclear where the boundary lies between harm that is considered “serious” and harm that is not considered “serious”.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 is directed to a program per se, which does not fall into any categories of subject matter eligible for protection under 35 U.S.C. 101. The language related to the computer is intended use, and does not modify or limit the program, nor impart any structure on the program. The examiner suggest amending the claim as follows : --A non-transitory computer readable medium having a work safety processing program stored thereon, the work safety processing program, when executed, causing a computer to perform: --“. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUZUKI ET AL. Japanese Patent Publication No. JP-2012027893 (hereinafter SUZUKI).
Regarding Claim 1 , SUZUKI discloses an information processing device(5) comprising: a specification unit that specifies at least one of an item or a load of work performed by a user; and a detection unit(2) that detects an abnormal situation of the user on a basis of a determination criterion(Fig 4)
according to at least one of the item or the load of work specified by the specification unit via a sensor(2) provided on the user or around the user.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶[0012], Line 2, “The physical condition of the worker in the work area E is monitored and managed by the management device (5) installed outside the management area.”)
(¶[0004], Lines 1-5, “As a countermeasure against heat stroke of the worker, for example, there is a system in which a monitoring terminal including a sensor, a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a wireless module, a memory, and the like is attached to the worker's protective clothing (see Patent Document 1). In this system, information such as a worker's body temperature and heart rate acquired by a sensor is wirelessly transmitted to a management device, which is a remote external computer, at regular intervals. Then, an abnormality determination is performed on the management device side, and in the case of an abnormality, the administrator gives an instruction to the worker to take a break or evacuate via the monitoring terminal.”)
(¶[0012] , Line 1, “The worker (1) performs a predetermined work in the work area E of the nuclear facility building 6 that is one of the buildings in the nuclear power plant.”)
(¶[0014], “As shown in (FIG. 2), the abnormality detection device (2) includes a heart rate sensor (201), a temperature sensor (202), a humidity sensor (203), an acceleration sensor (204), a CPU (205) (processing means), a buzzer(206) (abnormality notification means), and a small motor (207) (abnormality notification means). ), A wireless module (208), a memory (209) (storage means), an RTC (Real Time Clock) (210), a display unit (211), a battery (212), and a button (213). Hereinafter, the heart rate sensor (201), the temperature sensor (202), the humidity sensor (203), and the acceleration sensor (204) are collectively referred to simply as “sensors”. The data acquired by the sensor is referred to as “sensor data”.)
Regarding Claim 4, which is dependent on Claim 1 and rejected for the same reason, recites the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the abnormal situation on the basis of the determination criterion in which sensitivity for detecting the abnormal situation, which is determined in advance for at least one of the work item or the work load specified by the specification unit and in which serious harm to the user is assumed, is more than or equal to a threshold.
SUZUKI discloses a heat stroke detection system which is known to cause serious harm if not treated or prevented.
Regarding Claim 7, SUZUKI discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an output control unit that outputs information on a warning about the abnormal situation detected by the detection unit to a predetermined output destination.
(¶[0041], “In the display area (2112), a message for the worker (1) is displayed. In the example of Fig. 6, the body temperature and humidity are high, and the item of "judgment" is "abnormal". In the display area (2112), "<alarm> body temperature and humidity is high and there is a possibility of heat stroke. Is displayed. By looking at this display, the worker (1) can know that there is a possibility of heat stroke, and can take early measures such as interrupting the work or supplying water. The “<alarm>” portion indicates an abnormality exceeding the alarm level. If the abnormality exceeds the warning level, the portion may be displayed as “<warning>”.)(e.g. message is predetermined to go to worker warning them of abnormal condition).
Regarding Claim 8, which is dependent on Claim 7, which is dependent on Claim 1, SUZUKI discloses the information processing device according to claim 7,
wherein the output control unit outputs the warning information to the output destination according to a type of the abnormal situation detected by the detection unit.
Next, the CPU (205) of the abnormality detection device (2) transmits the alarm content (abnormal signal) to the management device (5) regardless of whether or not the transmission timing by the transmission cycle has arrived (even if No in step (S18)) ( The process proceeds to step S9) and step (S17). When receiving the alarm content (Yes in step (S10)), the management device (5) stores the alarm content in the storage unit (512) (step S11). If No in step (S10), step (S11) is skipped. In addition, by displaying what abnormality of which worker (1) is abnormal on the display unit (513) of the management device (5) (see FIG. 7), the administrator who sees it wirelessly contacts the worker (1), or For example, a rescuer can be dispatched to the worker (1) and appropriate measures can be taken.(e.g. when the abnormal situation goes from warning to alarm level the information is sent to management device and administrator to take further action)
Regarding Claim 9 and 10; they are rejected for the same reason as Claim 1. Claim 9 is the method of paralleling the device of Claim 1.Claim 10 is a program which a method that is executable on the information processing device of Claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI in view of OKADA ET AL. Japanese Patent Publication No. JP-2019033673 (hereinafter OKADA).
SUZUKI discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 , of which Claim 2 is dependent upon. SUZUKI however does not disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the abnormal situation on the basis of the determination criterion in which sensitivity for detecting the abnormal situation, which is determined in advance for at least one of the work item or the work load specified by the specification unit and in which the occurrence of erroneous detection is assumed, is less than or equal to a threshold.
OKADA discloses detecting erroneous falls or rolling alerts of a walking work vehicle (e.g. mobile object falling over).
(¶[0059], Lines 2-6, “The acceleration detected by the acceleration detection sensor 10 'may increase instantaneously. Therefore, if it is determined that a fall has occurred only when the pitch angle or roll angle calculated based on the acceleration that has increased momentarily exceeds the predetermined threshold instantaneously, there is a possibility that false detection may occur. Therefore, in the present embodiment, as described above, occurrence of false detection is determined by determining that falling has occurred only when the frequency determined that the pitch angle or roll angle exceeds the predetermined threshold is equal to or higher than the predetermined level.”)
SUZUKI and OKADA are analogous art because they both disclose methods of safety event detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of heat stroke detection of SUZUKI and incorporate the work vehicle fall or roll detection of OKADA for workers that may be using mobile work machines in the workplace to detect other hazardous conditions in the workplace that don’t rely on monitoring the worker alone but also the equipment they use.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI in view of LEE ET AL. U.S. Patent No. 11100767 (hereinafter LEE).
SUZUKI discloses all of the limitation of Claim 1, of which Claim 3 is dependent upon. SUZUKI however does not disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the abnormal situation on the basis of the determination criterion in which sensitivity for detecting the abnormal situation, which is determined in advance for at least one of the work item or the work load specified by the specification unit and in which occurrence of erroneous detection is assumed, is smaller than that in a case where the occurrence of erroneous detection is not assumed.
LEE discloses utilizing first and second measurements , as well as correlation determination to filter out false positives for events.
(Col. 3 , Lines 32-47, “Another advantage of the electronic device identifying safety events can be to use the sensor array to reduce or eliminate erroneous identifications of safety events. For example, the electronic device can include an accelerometer to measure movement, a skin temperature sensor to measure skin temperature, and a blood pressure monitor to measure blood pressure. In this example, first measurement information from the accelerometer can indicate an extended period of inactivity that may indicate a safety event for a user, such as the user being immobile or unconscious. However, second measurement information from the skin temperature sensor and the blood pressure sensor can indicate that physiologically the user is healthy and well.(e.g. false positive assumed due to inactivity, but second measurement where it is not assumed that the skin temp or blood pressure would be normal if an event has occurred is not above a threshold) The processing logic can analyze the first and second measurement information to determine that the user may be inactive but not experiencing a safety event.”)
(Col. 21, Lines 56-65, “Additionally, or alternatively, the correlator (1013) may filter out a correlation determination (e.g., a determination that data points or data sets and safety events may be correlated) when a correlation level is below a threshold level. For example, when the correlator (1013) determines that there may be a 30 percent correlation between a skin temperature or a bio-impedance level of an individual and a fall event, the correlator (1013) may filter out or disregard the correlation information when determining a cause of the fall event.”)
(Col. 22, Lines 11-17, “Additionally, or alternatively, the correlator (1013) may filter out the correlation determination based on a schedule of an individual. For example, when the correlator (1013) determines that an individual is taking a lunch break, off of work, or sleeping, the correlator (1013) may filter out safety events that are associated with the occupation of the user, e.g., the correlator (1013) can filter out false positives”)
SUZUKI and LEE are analogous art because they both disclose methods of safety event detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of heat stroke detection of SUZUKI and include the false positive elimination steps of LEE in order to minimize non-detection and false detection of events and implementing first aid or intervention measures that are unnecessary.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI in view of YOSHIO Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2019114190.
Regarding Claim 5, SUZUKI discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, of which Claim 5 is dependent upon. However, SUZUKI does not disclose the information processing device according to claim1, wherein the specification unit specifies at least one of the work item or the work load on the basis of a position of the user.
YOSHIO discloses work content (e.g. work item) and work load of worker based on worker position.
(¶[0024], Lines 1-5, “Next, in step (S503), the CPU (201) acquires position information indicating the position of the worker from the worker terminal device (120). This process is an example of position information acquisition process. Next, in (S504), the CPU (201) estimates the work content and work load of the worker based on the map information shown in (FIG. 3). Specifically, the CPU (201) identifies, in the map information (300), an area including the position indicated by the position information acquired in (S503), and identifies the work content and the work load associated with the specified area with the work content of the worker. And estimate it as work load.”)
([0024], Lines 8-13, “When the management server device (110) receives information indicating the selected work content (e.g. predetermined work item ) from the worker terminal device (120), the management server device (110) follows the received information to select one work content and the corresponding workload, the work content and the workload of the worker. Estimated as This processing is an example of work content estimation processing and load estimation processing. As described above, in the heat stroke management system (100), the workload of the worker is estimated based on the position information of the worker and the map information without using the biometric sensor, and the workload of the worker is estimated based on the environment information and the workload. The worker's fatigue level can be estimated, and the worker's physical condition management can be performed.”)
SUZUKI and YOSHIO are analogous are because they both discloses methods of safety event detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of heat stroke detection of SUZUKI and incorporate the work item selection and work load estimation of YOSHIO based on the position of the monitored worker , to create the claimed invention in order to accurately estimate fatigue levels and to ascertain where a worker is while they are working.
Regarding Claim 6, which is dependent on Claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason as Claim 5. The management server (110) receives the environment and position information of the worker as well as the work content of worker and uses the information to determine the work load.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PENG ET AL. European Patent No. EP 2203910 discloses a method and apparatus for detecting abnormal situations
GAGNARDE ET AL. French Patent No. FR 2808609 discloses a monitoring system that detects a possible fall by monitoring activity and physiological parameters.
SHIGA Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2013171383 A discloses a mobile terminal device, work management system, and work management method for monitoring work performed by an operator.
ITOI ET AL. Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2020149150 discloses a health management device, system, and program to determine health state of worker.
YOKOHAMA ET AL. Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2020160697 discloses a fall warning device, notification system and program to detect a fall of a worker from a high place or a work vehicle.
MINAUCHI ET AL. Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2022124807 discloses detecting abnormal states of workers that can lead to a potentially dangerous event.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DWAYNE MARSHALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1001. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zimmerman Brian, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3059. 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/J.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights