DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to preliminary amendments filed July 23rd, 2025. Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (assessing device), 8 (method), and 15 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to an assessing device (i.e. machine), claim 8 is directed to an assessing method (i.e. process), and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite assessing method comprising, by one or more computers, acquiring a reference image, analyze the reference image, identifying a worn item worn by a worker appearing in the reference image, generating worn item template information indicating the worn item that should be worn by the worker, based on an analysis result of the reference image, store the worn item template information in a storage, acquiring a target image in which a worker to be assessed appears, analyze the target image; identifying a worn item worn by the worker appearing in the target image, and assessing whether the worker to be assessed is wearing the worn item that should be worn based on the worn item identified by analyzing the target image and the worn item indicated by the worn item template information (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are assessing whether the worker to be assessed is wearing the worn item that should be worn by: identifying a worn item work by a worker appearing in the reference image; generating worn item template information indicating the work item that should be worn by the worker, based on an analysis result of the reference image; identifying a worn item work by the worker appearing in the target image, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are assessing the worn items of a worker, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are assessing whether the worker to be assessed is wearing the worn item that should be worn by: analyzing the reference image; identifying a worn item work by a worker appearing in the reference image; generating worn item template information indicating the work item that should be worn by the worker, based on an analysis result of the reference image; analyze the target image; identifying a worn item work by the worker appearing in the target image, which are observations, judgements, evaluations, and opinions of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are assessing the worn items of a worker, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining analysis of the worker at a work site; detecting a predetermined worker from the image captured at the work site based on feature quantities; identifying a worn item worn by the detected predetermined worker; identifying a work item worn by each of a plurality of workers appearing in the image captured at the work site; generating the worn item template information indicating a worn item possessed by a predetermined number or more of workers or a worn item possessed by a predetermined proportion or more of workers among the plurality of workers appearing in the image captured at the work site, as the worn item that should be worn by the worker; identifying a work type of a work performer by the worker appearing in the reference image and the target image; generating the worn item template information for each work type based on the analysis result of the reference image and the target image; identifying a plurality of workers appearing in the target image from each other based on feature quantities of an appearance of the worker, and registering a history of an assessment result of not wearing the worn item that should be worn for each worker. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “acquiring a reference image; store the worn item template information in a storage; acquiring a target image in which a worker to be assessed appears” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “An assessing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions; a storage; one or more computers; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 additionally recite “acquire an image captured at a work site as the reference image” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “at least one processor”, “one or more computers”, and “the program causes the computer” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “An assessing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions; a storage; one or more computers; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 8-14; assessing device claims 1-7; and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 15-20 recite “An assessing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions; a storage; one or more computers; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraph [0027] and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “acquiring a reference image; store the worn item template information in a storage; acquiring a target image in which a worker to be assessed appears” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2, 9, and 16 additionally recite “acquire an image captured at a work site as the reference image” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “at least one processor”, “one or more computers”, and “the program causes the computer” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (U.S 2009/0161918 A1) in view of Hillhouse (U.S 2002/0154793 A1).
Claims 1, 8, and 15
Regarding Claim 1, Heller discloses the following:
An assessing device comprising [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to image analysis system configured to detect compliance with requirements for using personal protective equipment; Figure 1 and related text regarding the image analysis system including an image capture device, a security checkpoint input device, and a computer system all connected by a network]
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to the computer system including a memory; Paragraph 0024 for reference to the memory including an image recognition tool and a protective equipment analysis tool; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 120 ‘memory’]
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to the computer system including a CPU wherein the CPU provides a processor configured to execute a sequence of instructions providing by an application program stored in memory; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 110 ‘CPU’]
acquire a reference image [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to when an individual uses the security checkpoint input device to request access to the restricted area, the image capture device may capture an image of the individual and transmit it over network to computer system for analysis; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the image analysis system receives a request to enter a restricted area, for example, FIG. 2 shows a person positioned at a security door while wearing glasses and a hardhat; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 605 ‘RECEIVE REQUEST TO ENTER RESTRICTED AREA’ and item 610 ‘RETRIEVE LIST OF REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT’]
analyze the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to when an individual uses the security checkpoint input device 145 to request access to the restricted area, the image capture device may capture an image of the individual and transmit it over network to computer system for analysis; Paragraph 0035 for reference to a list of PPE required for entry into the restricted area being retrieved; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 610 ‘RETRIEVE LIST OF REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT’]
identify a worn item worn by a worker appearing in the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to when an individual uses the security checkpoint input device 145 to request access to the restricted area, the image capture device may capture an image of the individual and transmit it over network to computer system for analysis; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the image analysis system receives a request to enter a restricted area, for example, FIG. 2 shows a person positioned at a security door while wearing glasses and a hardhat; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 605 ‘RECEIVE REQUEST TO ENTER RESTRICTED AREA’]
store the worn item template information in a storage [see at least Paragraph 0024 for reference to storage including protective equipment data including descriptions of PPE including image pixel patterns associated with the required PPE items (e.g., safety glasses) along with marking patterns expected to be found on approved PPE items; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 117 ‘protective equipment database’]
acquire a target image in which a worker to be assessed appears [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to an image capturing device (e.g., a CCD) captures an image of the individual requesting access to the restricted area; Figure 5A and related text regarding an image captured and analyzed using an image analysis system configured to detect compliance with requirements for using personal protective equipment; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 615 ‘CAPTURE CAMERA IMAGE OF INDIVIDUAL’]
analyze the target image [see at least Paragraph 0024 for reference to the image recognition tool 122 may provide a software application configured to analyze the captured image to identify a particular object (or objects); namely, the required PPE item (or items); Paragraph 0032 for reference to the image 500 may be analyzed to determine whether the individual 505 is wearing glasses 530 prior to being granted entry into a restricted area; Paragraph 0036 for reference to the system may determine whether the PPE required for entry into the restricted area is present in the image captured; Paragraph 0037 for reference to if the PPE required for entry is depicted in the image captured at step 615, then at steps 635-650, the protective equipment analysis tool may determine whether the PPE is being worn properly by the individual requesting access to the restricted area; Figure 5B and related text regarding an analysis of the image; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 620 ‘ANALYZE IMAGE TO IDENTIFY PROTECTIVE GEAR WORN BY INDIVIDUAL’]
identify a worn item worn by the worker appearing in the target image [see at least Paragraph 0024 for reference to the image recognition tool may be configured to evaluate whether the requesting individual is wearing the correct PPE items; Paragraph 0036 for reference to the system may determine whether the PPE required for entry into the restricted area is present in the image captured; Paragraph 0036 for reference to an RFID sensing device may be used to detect the presence of a required PPE item marked with an RFID that is being worn by an individual; Figure 5B and related text regarding an analysis of the image; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 625 ‘REQUIRE PROTECTIVE GEAR PRESENT?’]
assess whether the worker to be assessed is wearing the worn item that should be worn based on the worn item identified by analyzing the target image and the worn item indicated by the worn item template information [see at least Paragraph 0024 for reference to a group of intersecting edges may form a "blob” and the shape of the resulting "blob” may be compared to patterns of the PPE items or markings on the PPE items made using UV fluorescent dye, inks or other marking materials; Paragraph 0037 for reference to if the PPE required for entry is depicted in the image captured at step 615, then at steps 635-650, the protective equipment analysis tool may determine whether the PPE is being worn properly by the individual requesting access to the restricted area; Paragraph 0038 for reference to if the individual is determined to be both wearing the correct PPE items (as determined at step 625) and wearing the PPE items in the correct positions (as determined at step 655), then the system may grant the individual with access to the restricted area; Figures 5A-5B and related text regarding an image captured and analyzed using an image analysis system configured to detect compliance with requirements for using personal protective equipment; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 655 ‘ARE COMPARED MEASUREMENTS WITHIN REQUIRED DISTANCES/SPECIFICATIONS?’]
While Heller discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose generate worn item template information indicating the worn item that should be worn by the worker, based on an analysis result of the reference image.
However, Hillhouse discloses the following:
acquire a reference image [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to user provides biometric information to a contact imaging device, wherein the biometric information is imaged and a digital representation of the biometric information is formed; Figure 1 and related text regarding ‘Provide biometric input to contact imaging device’]
analyze the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to digital representation is then analysed to deter mine features forming a part thereof; Figure 1 and related text regarding ‘Form digital image of biometric input and process for features’]
generate worn item template information indicating the worn item that should be worn by the worker, based on an analysis result of the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to forming at least a first template including biometric features for use in identifying an individual; Paragraph 0046 for reference to forming a history file including a plurality of biometric information samples each provided by the same individual at different times for use in identifying the individual; Paragraph 0047 for reference to forming at least an adaptive enrollment template from the biometric information samples in the history file; Paragraph 0065 for reference to master enrollment, generated from a statically enrolled biometric information source, is stored for each biometric; Paragraph 0065 for reference to number of historical enrollments are stored for each biometric template based on data within a configuration file]
store the worn item template information in a storage [see at least Paragraph 0065 for reference to an authentication server database memory diagram for which is shown in FIG. 4, three classes of biometric template enrollments are stored in the authentication server database; Figure 1 and related text regarding ‘Storage in database’ and ‘Biometric Template Database’; Figure 4 and related text regarding ‘Authentication Server’]
assess whether the worker to be assessed is wearing the worn item that should be worn based on the worn item identified by analyzing the target image and the worn item indicated by the worn item template information [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to features are then compared to templates of features relating to known individual and when a feature match occurs within predetermined limits, the user is identified as the related known individual; Paragraph 0063 for reference to digital representation is then analyzed to determine features forming a part thereof and these features are then compared to templates of features relating to known individuals and when a feature match occurs within predetermined limits, the user is identified as the related known individual]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference list of Heller to include the user generated template of Hillhouse. Doing so the system is provided with templates that more closely match a current biometric information sample of the user, as stated by Hillhouse (Paragraph 0061).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Heller teaches an assessing method comprising, one or more computers [Paragraph 0008 & Figure 6]. Regarding claim 15, Baird teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer [Paragraph 0020 and 023]. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Heller and Hillhouse.
Claims 2, 9, and 16
While the combination of Heller and Hillhouse disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Heller discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to acquire an image captured at a work site as the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0016 for reference to workplace safety rules may require that individuals wear or use certain PPE within the restricted area; Paragraph 0022 for reference to when an individual uses the security checkpoint input device to request access to the restricted area, the image capture device may capture an image of the individual and transmit it over network to computer system for analysis; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the image analysis system receives a request to enter a restricted area, for example, FIG. 2 shows a person positioned at a security door while wearing glasses and a hardhat; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 605 ‘RECEIVE REQUEST TO ENTER RESTRICTED AREA’ and item 610 ‘RETRIEVE LIST OF REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT’]
identify a worn item worn by a worker appearing in the image captured at the work site [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to when an individual uses the security checkpoint input device 145 to request access to the restricted area, the image capture device may capture an image of the individual and transmit it over network to computer system for analysis; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the image analysis system receives a request to enter a restricted area, for example, FIG. 2 shows a person positioned at a security door while wearing glasses and a hardhat; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 605 ‘RECEIVE REQUEST TO ENTER RESTRICTED AREA’]
While Heller discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose generate the worn item template information based on an analysis result of the image captured at the work site.
However, Hillhouse discloses the following:
generate the worn item template information based on an analysis result of the image captured at the work site [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to forming at least a first template including biometric features for use in identifying an individual; Paragraph 0046 for reference to forming a history file including a plurality of biometric information samples each provided by the same individual at different times for use in identifying the individual; Paragraph 0047 for reference to forming at least an adaptive enrollment template from the biometric information samples in the history file; Paragraph 0065 for reference to master enrollment, generated from a statically enrolled biometric information source, is stored for each biometric; Paragraph 0065 for reference to number of historical enrollments are stored for each biometric template based on data within a configuration file]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference list of Heller to include the user generated template of Hillhouse. Doing so the system is provided with templates that more closely match a current biometric information sample of the user, as stated by Hillhouse (Paragraph 0061).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3, 10, and 17
While the combination of Heller and Hillhouse disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 3, Heller discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to detect a predetermined worker from the image captured at the work site based on feature quantities of an appearance of the predetermined worker registered in advance [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to when an individual uses the security checkpoint input device to request access to the restricted area, the image capture device may capture an image of the individual and transmit it over network to computer system for analysis; Paragraph 0032 for reference to an image recognition tool has identified a general outline of the individual's head, as represented by the outline of points, and identified the mark; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the image analysis system receives a request to enter a restricted area, for example, FIG. 2 shows a person positioned at a security door while wearing glasses and a hardhat; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 605 ‘RECEIVE REQUEST TO ENTER RESTRICTED AREA’ and item 610 ‘RETRIEVE LIST OF REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT’]
identify a worn item worn by the detected predetermined worker [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to the protective equipment analysis tool may identify the hardhat in an image based on the size of the glasses or on the size and/or shape of markings (e.g., by identifying the star shaped pattern of mark); Paragraph 0035 for reference to the image analysis tool may identify edges of objects in the image by looking for significant changes in contrast levels from one set of pixels to an adjacent set of pixels]
While Heller discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose generate the worn item template information indicating a worn item worn by the predetermined worker, as the worn item that should be worn by the worker.
However, Hillhouse discloses the following:
generate the worn item template information indicating a worn item worn by the predetermined worker, as the worn item that should be worn by the worker [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to forming at least a first template including biometric features for use in identifying an individual; Paragraph 0046 for reference to forming a history file including a plurality of biometric information samples each provided by the same individual at different times for use in identifying the individual; Paragraph 0047 for reference to forming at least an adaptive enrollment template from the biometric information samples in the history file; Paragraph 0065 for reference to master enrollment, generated from a statically enrolled biometric information source, is stored for each biometric; Paragraph 0065 for reference to number of historical enrollments are stored for each biometric template based on data within a configuration file]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference list of Heller to include the user generated template of Hillhouse. Doing so the system is provided with templates that more closely match a current biometric information sample of the user, as stated by Hillhouse (Paragraph 0061).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 7 and 14
While the combination of Heller and Hillhouse disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 7, Heller discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to identify a plurality of workers appearing in the target image from each other based on feature quantities of an appearance of the worker [see at least Paragraph 0024 for reference to the image recognition tool may be configured to evaluate whether the requesting individual is wearing the correct PPE items; Paragraph 0036 for reference to the system may determine whether the PPE required for entry into the restricted area is present in the image captured; Paragraph 0036 for reference to an RFID sensing device may be used to detect the presence of a required PPE item marked with an RFID that is being worn by an individual; Figure 5B and related text regarding an analysis of the image; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 625 ‘REQUIRE PROTECTIVE GEAR PRESENT?’]
register a history of an assessment result of not wearing the worn item that should be worn for each worker [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the access log providing a log file used to record a variety of information regarding the results of image processing including an indication of who was (or was not) granted access to a restricted area; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 119 ‘access log’]
Regarding claims 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (U.S 2009/0161918 A1) in view of Hillhouse (U.S 2002/0154793 A1), as applied in claims 2, 9, and 16, in view of Kim (U.S 2023/0162476 A1).
Claims 4, 11, and 18
While the combination of Heller and Hillhouse disclose the limitations above, Heller does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to identify a worn item worn by each of a plurality of workers appearing in the image captured at the work site, and generate the worn item template information indicating a worn item possessed by a predetermined number or more of workers or a worn item possessed by a predetermined proportion or more of workers among the plurality of workers appearing in the image captured at the work site, as the worn item that should be worn by the worker.
Regarding Claim 4, Hillhouse discloses the following:
generate the worn item template information indicating a worn item possessed by a predetermined number or more of workers or a worn item possessed by a predetermined proportion or more of workers among the plurality of workers appearing in the image captured at the work site, as the worn item that should be worn by the worker [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to features are then compared to templates of features relating to known individual and when a feature match occurs within predetermined limits, the user is identified as the related known individual; Paragraph 0061 for reference to features within a digital representation match those of a template, a distance between the digital representation and the template is calculated; Paragraph 0063 for reference to digital representation is then analyzed to determine features forming a part thereof and these features are then compared to templates of features relating to known individuals and when a feature match occurs within predetermined limits, the user is identified as the related known individual]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference list of Heller to include the user generated template of Hillhouse. Doing so the system is provided with templates that more closely match a current biometric information sample of the user, as stated by Hillhouse (Paragraph 0061).
While Hillhouse discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to identify a worn item worn by each of a plurality of workers appearing in the image captured at the work site.
However, Kim discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to identify a worn item worn by each of a plurality of workers appearing in the image captured at the work site [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to worker identification unit serves to identify a worker by analyzing an image received from the image acquisition device; Paragraph 0035 for reference to worker identification unit performs the operation of grouping workers based on identifiers; Paragraph 0038 for reference to workers grouped by the worker identification unit may have different types of protective equipment required to be worn for respective groups; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 210 ‘worker identification unit’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the identification of worn items by Heller to include the identification of a plurality of workers of Kim. Doing so would enable the classification of workers and the determination of a risk for each worker based on a mobile image acquisition device, as stated by Kim (Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5, 12, and 19
While the combination of Heller and Hillhouse disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 5, Heller discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to analyze the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to when an individual uses the security checkpoint input device 145 to request access to the restricted area, the image capture device may capture an image of the individual and transmit it over network to computer system for analysis; Paragraph 0035 for reference to a list of PPE required for entry into the restricted area being retrieved; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 610 ‘RETRIEVE LIST OF REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT’]
While Heller discloses the limitations above, identify a work type of a work performed by the worker appearing in the reference image, and generate the worn item template information for each work type based on the analysis result of the reference image.
However, Hillhouse discloses the following:
generate the worn item template information based on the analysis result of the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to features are then compared to templates of features relating to known individual and when a feature match occurs within predetermined limits, the user is identified as the related known individual; Paragraph 0061 for reference to features within a digital representation match those of a template, a distance between the digital representation and the template is calculated; Paragraph 0063 for reference to digital representation is then analyzed to determine features forming a part thereof and these features are then compared to templates of features relating to known individuals and when a feature match occurs within predetermined limits, the user is identified as the related known individual]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference list of Heller to include the user generated template of Hillhouse. Doing so the system is provided with templates that more closely match a current biometric information sample of the user, as stated by Hillhouse (Paragraph 0061).
While Hillhouse discloses the limitations above, identify a work type of a work performed by the worker appearing in the reference image, and generate the worn item template information for each work type based on the analysis result of the reference image.
However, Kim discloses the following:
identify a work type of a work performed by the worker appearing in the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to a worker may have an identifier that varies depending on the company to which the worker belongs, the type of work that is performed by the worker, or the location within the construction site at which the worker works, the worker identification unit performs the operation of grouping workers based on identifiers; Paragraph 0047 for reference the type of work may vary depending on each group of workers]
generate the worn item template information for each work type based on the analysis result of the reference image [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to protective equipment wearing determination unit according to an embodiment may analyze whether each worker has worn protective equipment required for each group; Paragraph 0039 for reference to protective equipment required to be worn for each color of a safety helmet shown in Table 1; Paragraph 0046 for reference to a risk factor for each group of workers and a safety factor required to be disposed for the group of workers as shown in Table 2]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the identification of worn items by Heller to include the identification of work type of Kim. Doing so would enable the classification of workers and the determination of a risk for each worker based on a mobile image acquisition device, as stated by Kim (Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6, 13, and 20
While the combination of Heller and Hillhouse disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 6, Heller discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to analyze the target image [see at least Paragraph 0024 for reference to the image recognition tool 122 may provide a software application configured to analyze the captured image to identify a particular object (or objects); namely, the required PPE item (or items); Paragraph 0032 for reference to the image 500 may be analyzed to determine whether the individual 505 is wearing glasses 530 prior to being granted entry into a restricted area; Paragraph 0036 for reference to the system may determine whether the PPE required for entry into the restricted area is present in the image captured; Paragraph 0037 for reference to if the PPE required for entry is depicted in the image captured at step 615, then at steps 635-650, the protective equipment analysis tool may determine whether the PPE is being worn properly by the individual requesting access to the restricted area; Figure 5B and related text regarding an analysis of the image; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 620 ‘ANALYZE IMAGE TO IDENTIFY PROTECTIVE GEAR WORN BY INDIVIDUAL’]
While Heller discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose identify a work type of a work performed by the worker appearing in the target image, and assess whether the worker to be assessed is wearing the worn item that should be worn based on the worn item identified by analysis of the target image and the worn item indicated by the worn item template information corresponding to the work type identified by the analysis of the target image.
However, Kim discloses the following:
analyze the target image [see at least image acquisition device serves to acquire an image of a scene included in the field of view while moving through a construction site and then send the image to the analysis server; Paragraph 0029 for reference to analysis server may include a memory to store collected image information and a processor to analyze the image information stored in the memory; Paragraph 0034 for reference to worker identification unit serves to identify a worker by analyzing an image received from the image acquisition device]
identify a work type of a work performed by the worker appearing in the target image [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to a worker may have an identifier that varies depending on the company to which the worker belongs, the type of work that is performed by the worker, or the location within the construction site at which the worker works, the worker identification unit performs the operation of grouping workers based on identifiers; Paragraph 0047 for reference the type of work may vary depending on each group of workers]
assess whether the worker to be assessed is wearing the worn item that should be worn based on the worn item identified by analysis of the target image and the worn item indicated by the worn item template information corresponding to the work type identified by the analysis of the target image [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to protective equipment wearing determination unit serves to determine whether each worker identified by the worker identification unit has worn protective equipment; Paragraph 0037 for reference to in image analysis, the recognition of protective equipment worn by each worker may be performed; Paragraph 0038 for reference to protective equipment wearing determination unit according to an embodiment may analyze whether each worker has worn protective equipment required for each group; Paragraph 0039 for reference to protective equipment required to be worn for each color of a safety helmet shown in Table 1; Paragraph 0046 for reference to a risk factor for each group of workers and a safety factor required to be disposed for the group of workers as shown in Table 2]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the identification of worn items by Heller to include the identification of work type of Kim. Doing so would enable the classification of workers and the determination of a risk for each worker based on a mobile image acquisition device, as stated by Kim (Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel, Vishal, et al. "Trends in workplace wearable technologies and connected‐worker solutions for next‐generation occupational safety, health, and productivity." Advanced Intelligent Systems 4.1 (2022): 2100099.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2014/0307076 A1
Deutsch, Richard
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MONITORING PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT AND PROMOTING WORKER SAFETY
CN 113743284 B
Gong et al.
Image Recognition Method, Device, Device, Camera And Access Control Device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights