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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 14 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.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following highlighted claims 1 and 14 elements are not described in the original specification;
“determining, by the state machine, based upon the analyses, a level of progress made towards a goal of a supervising user by an individual in the work area utilizing the at least one object.”
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the modification.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minsky et al. (US 2021/0334671) in view of Wartel (US 2015/0269512).
Regarding claim 1, Minsky teaches a method for providing, by a learning system trained to identify at least one component in a time-based data stream, access to automated tracking system data and to analyses of the automated tracking system data, the method comprising:
processing, by a machine vision component in communication with a learning system, a video file to detect at least one object in a work area depicted in the video file (see para. 0283, 0291, 0301, Minsky discusses a learning method that performs recognition and inference tasks using input from an image, sequence of images, continuous video stream, or sequence of video segments);
generating, by the machine vision component, an output including data relating to the at least one object and the video file (see para. 0281, Minsky discusses artificial intelligence analyzes a point cloud image captured by the 3D camera to plan and take action; see para. 0283, 0301, Minsky discusses outputs as a result of captured scenes by a vision system);
analyzing, by a learning system, the output (see para. 0281, Minsky discusses artificial intelligence analyzes a point cloud image captured by the 3D camera to plan and take action);
identifying, by the learning system, an attribute of the video file, the attribute associated with the at least one object (see para. 0095, 0281, 0302-0303, Minsky discusses analyzing attributes of an environment or objects in images);
analyzing, by a state machine in communication with the learning system, the output and the attribute and the video file (see para. 0286, Minsky discusses system learns cause/effect of applying visual routines, image processing software modules, and correlates the cause/effect learned with external actions and labels);
determining, by the state machine, based upon the analyses, a level of progress made towards a goal of a supervising user by an individual in the work area utilizing the at least one object (see para. 0115, 0195, 0199, Minsky discusses progress toward a goal achievement; see para. 0267, 0294, Minsky discusses subtasks can be attended to and then progress can be made toward the higher-level goal).
Wartel teaches modifying, by the learning system, a user interface to display an indication of the determination by the state machine of the level of progress made towards the goal by the individual in the work area through utilization of the at least one object (see figure 4, para. 0067, 0080, 0083, 0095, Wartel discusses user interfaces displaying productivity system).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Minsky in this manner in order to improve tracking video data by displaying information on a user interface to ensure users are capable of viewing the data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Minsky, while the teaching of Wartel continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of training a system to analyze data and display data on a user interface to allow users access to interpreted data. The Minsky and Wartel systems perform video data analysis, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Wartel teaches wherein identifying the attribute further comprises identifying, in real-time, during operation of the at least one object, a level of direct labor input (see para. 0052, Wartel discusses measuring directly or indirectly the quality and productivity of the participants' contributions. The measures may include measurement of the participant's activity, measurement of the immediate output of the participant, measurement of the impact of the participant on those upstream or downstream of the participant in the process or project, and measurement of the attitude or behavior of the participant).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 3, Wartel teaches wherein identifying the attribute further comprises identifying, in real-time, during operation of the at least one object, a level of indirect labor input (see para. 0052, Wartel discusses measuring directly or indirectly the quality and productivity of the participants' contributions. The measures may include measurement of the participant's activity, measurement of the immediate output of the participant, measurement of the impact of the participant on those upstream or downstream of the participant in the process or project, and measurement of the attitude or behavior of the participant).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 4, Wartel teaches wherein identifying the attribute further comprises identifying, in real-time, during operation of the at least one object, a level of machine utilization (see para. 0052, 0118, 0131, 0151, Wartel discusses each labor hour, plant hour and machine hour and determining the amount of time machines are manned).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 5, Wartel teaches wherein identifying the attribute further comprises identifying, in real-time, during operation of the at least one object, a level of machine operator activity (see para. 0052, 0118, 0131, 0151, Wartel discusses each labor hour, plant hour and machine hour and determining the amount of time machines are manned).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 6, Wartel teaches wherein identifying the attribute further comprises identifying, in real-time, during operation of the at least one object, a level of machine operator idleness (see para. 0131, Wartel discusses idle time, such as idle machine hours).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 7, Wartel teaches further comprising automatically generating a log entry for inclusion in a work log associated with the at least one object (see para. 0151, Wartel discusses generating work or job logs).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 8, Wartel teaches further comprising automatically generating a log entry for inclusion in a work log associated with an object interacting with the at least one object (see para. 0151, Wartel discusses generating work or job logs).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 8. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 9, Wartel teaches wherein the determining further comprises determining that the attribute associated with the at least one object is out of compliance with at least one productivity rule (see para. 0048, 0055, 0066, 0079, Wartel discusses quality and compliance with productivity).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 9. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 10, Wartel teaches wherein the determining further comprises determining that the attribute associated with the at least one object is out of compliance with at least one efficiency rule (see para. 0051, 0061, 0134, Wartel discusses quality, compliance, and benchmarks associated with efficiency/productivity scores).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 10. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 11, Wartel teaches further comprising determining, by the state machine, that the at least one object is associated with a form (see para. 0082, 0121, Wartel discusses data collected by tools; see para. 0106, Wartel discusses interface for a user input form for entering relevant information).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 11. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 12, Wartel teaches further comprises modifying, by the learning system, data in the form responsive to at least one determination by the state machine (see para. 0101, 0106, Wartel discusses interface for a user input form for entering relevant information).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 12. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Regarding claim 13, Wartel teaches further comprising modifying, by the learning system, a device visible to an operator of the at least one object, the modification incorporating into the device an identification of at least one determination by the state machine (see para. 0109, Wartel discusses machine operator information; see para. 0117, Wartel discuses performance of machines and people involved in completing work orders).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 13. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Minsky with Wartel to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform analyze and track video data.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663