DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ a machine operation panel”, “a signal registration unit”, “ signal data change time extraction unit”, “a frame detection unit”, “a video creation unit”, “an operation panel detection unit”, “a joint position estimation unit”, “an operation panel use time detection unit”, “a worker detection unit”, “a worker video clipping unit” and “an alarm handling video clipping unit” in claims 1-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-4 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. The limitation of claims 1-4 contains several limitations that have been interpreted as under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, a review of the specifications fails to provide sufficient structures that perform the function of “a signal registration unit”, “ signal data change time extraction unit”, “a frame detection unit”, “a video creation unit”, “an operation panel detection unit”, “a joint position estimation unit”, “an operation panel use time detection unit”, “a worker detection unit”, “a worker video clipping unit” and “an alarm handling video clipping unit”. For example, the specification fails to provide the necessary disclosure of “a signal registration unit of registering each button on the operational panel in the registered image”. Paragraph 47-48 only provide basic statement of the function of the a signal registration unit and the drawings only provide a blackbox drawing of “a signal registration unit” (FIG. 1 and 2 item 111) without providing sufficient description of the structure (or material or acts) corresponding to a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A review of the specification indicates that the function “ a machine operation panel”, “a signal registration unit”, “ signal data change time extraction unit”, “a frame detection unit”, “a video creation unit”, “an operation panel detection unit”, “a joint position estimation unit”, “an operation panel use time detection unit”, “a worker detection unit”, “a worker video clipping unit” and “an alarm handling video clipping unit” are to be interpreted as compute implemented means-plus-function limitation. As such, the specification must provide the necessary computer and the algorithm for the recited function. When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). Accordingly, the limitation of claims 1-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) for failing to provide sufficient written description.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, and 4 recite(s):
A video manual creation device, comprising:
a machine operation panel registration unit configured to register an image of an operation panel of a machine;
a signal registration unit configured to register each button on the operation panel in the image registered by the machine operation panel registration unit and a signal for controlling the operation panel by an operation of each button on the operation panel in association with each other;
a signal data change time extraction unit configured to extract a time of a change in the signal registered in the signal registration unit; a frame detection unit configured to detect, based on the time extracted by the signal data change time extraction unit, from a video including an operation performed on the operation panel by a worker, a frame at which a button corresponding to the changed signal was operated by the worker; and
a video creation unit configured to create a video displaying the button that was operated by the worker on the image of the operation panel registered by the machine operation panel registration unit when the frame detected by the frame detection unit is displayed.
4. A video manual creation method for causing a computer to function as a video manual creation device, the video manual creation method including:
a machine operation panel registration step of registering an image of an operation panel of a machine;
a signal registration step of registering each button on the operation panel in the registered image and
a signal for controlling the operation panel by an operation of each button on the operation panel in association with each other; a signal data change time extraction step of extracting a time of a change in the registered signal;
a frame detection step of detecting, based on the extracted time, from a video including an operation performed on the operation panel by a worker, a frame at which a button corresponding to the changed signal was operated by the worker; and
a video creation step of creating a video showing the button that was operated by the worker on the registered image of the operation panel when the detected frame is displayed.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses an instructor creating video to show a worker how to operate a certain machinery.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “computer”
The “computer” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] 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, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 17 and 18).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. For example, claims 2 and 3 are directed to the video editing option to detect worker or clip frames. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rammani US 12,444,315
Claim 1: The Akella reference provides a teaching of A video manual creation device, comprising:
a machine operation panel registration unit configured to register an image of an operation panel of a machine (see col. 5:40-50 video cameras and other visual sensors)
a signal registration unit configured to register each button on the operation panel in the image registered by the machine operation panel registration unit and a signal for controlling the operation panel by an operation of each button on the operation panel in association with each other (see col. 10:5-25 interaction between the user’s hand and other tools/button).
a signal data change time extraction unit configured to extract a time of a change in the signal registered in the signal registration unit (see col. 13:5-15 time sequence for each hand pose)
a frame detection unit configured to detect, based on the time extracted by the signal data change time extraction unit, from a video including an operation performed on the operation panel by a worker, a frame at which a button corresponding to the changed signal was operated by the worker (see col. 13:25-35 frame detections); and
a video creation unit configured to create a video displaying the button that was operated by the worker on the image of the operation panel registered by the machine operation panel registration unit when the frame detected by the frame detection unit is displayed (see col. 12:60-67 video creation).
Claim 4: The Akella reference provides a teaching of a video manual creation method for causing a computer to function as a video manual creation device, the video manual creation method including:
a machine operation panel registration step of registering an image of an operation panel of a machine (see col. 5:40-50 video cameras and other visual sensors);
a signal registration step of registering each button on the operation panel in the registered image and a signal for controlling the operation panel by an operation of each button on the operation panel in association with each other (see col. 10:5-25 interaction between the user’s hand and other tools/button). ;
a signal data change time extraction step of extracting a time of a change in the registered signal (see col. 13:5-15 time sequence for each hand pose);
a frame detection step of detecting, based on the extracted time, from a video including an operation performed on the operation panel by a worker, a frame at which a button corresponding to the changed signal was operated by the worker (see col. 13:25-35 frame detections); and
a video creation step of creating a video showing the button that was operated by the worker on the registered image of the operation panel when the detected frame is displayed (see col. 12:60-67 video creation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
