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 .
Priority
Claim of priority to provisional patent application 63/695,416 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/21/2026, 3/11/2026, 3/31/2026, 4/27/2026, and 5/14/2026 are in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are considered by the Examiner. However, in view of the excessive volume of references cited (particularly the more than 200 individual NPL references provided), Examiner was only able to give a cursory review of the documents. Examiner further notes that though 222 NPL references were cited over the submitted IDS forms, only 159 NPL documents are actually present in the file wrapper, some of which are missing content or do not appear to correlate with references listed in the IDS forms, such that many cited documents were not able to be reviewed at all (as indicated by strikethroughs). If Applicant desires any particular references to be specifically considered, Examiner suggests providing a concise list and/or brief explanation of the references considered most relevant.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-14 are directed to a method (i.e. a process), claims 15-19 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer program product (i.e. a manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes and mathematical concepts. Specifically, claim 1 (as representative) recites:
A computer-implemented method of assessing cumulative ergonomic risk, the method comprising, by a processor:
in memory of the processor, receiving risk data, wherein the risk data includes, for each task of a plurality of tasks performed by an operator, an indication of an ergonomic risk level, of a plurality of ergonomic risk levels, for the operator performing the task;
restructuring the risk data received to determine, across the plurality of tasks, a total time duration for each joint of a plurality of joints of the operator, at each risk level; and
determining the cumulative ergonomic risk based on the total time duration for each joint at each risk level.
But for the recitation of generic computer components like a processor and memory, the italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe an ergonomic risk calculation process that could otherwise be performed mentally by a human actor. For example, a person may receive indications of ergonomic risk levels of an operator performing a task (e.g. by looking at a printout of such indications), restructure the risk data to determine a total time duration at each risk level for each joint of the operator (e.g. by performing mathematical calculations or other judgments/assessments) either mentally or with the aid of pen and paper, and finally determine a cumulative ergonomic risk for the operator by making a judgment about the total time duration for each joint at each risk level. This process also covers mathematical concepts, because it describes the calculation of numerical time and risk levels. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process and mathematical concepts. Claims 15 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 1 and are found to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claims 1 and 15, respectively, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A – Prong 1 analysis. In addition, claims 2-13 and 16-19 recite additional limitations that further describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
Specifically, claim 2 further describes the received indications, which are types of information that a person would be capable of looking at and thinking about mentally to make further risk determinations. Claims 3-4 and 16 specify determining the cumulative ergonomic risk for a subset of joints, which further describes the mathematical processes and evaluations that a human actor could perform to make risk determinations. Claims 5-8 and 17-18 describe further details about the risk calculations and how they are broken down by joint and risk level, all of which merely further describe mathematical calculations and data analysis that a human actor could perform mentally or with aid of pen and paper. Claims 9-10 specify that the plurality of tasks form one or more operations and determining the risk for each operation, which a human actor could achieve mentally or with aid of pen and paper by grouping tasks into larger operations to determine operation-specific risks. Claim 11 specifies that the received indication is a function of operator posture and operator exerted force, which are data types that a human actor would be capable of observing indications of (e.g. by observing the outputs of an equation or other mathematical function that estimates an ergonomic risk level based on inputs related to operator posture and exerted force). Claim 12 recites that the received risk data comprises data captured by a wearable device on an operator, which is a type of data measurement that a human actor would be capable of looking at and thinking about (e.g. by looking at recorded readouts of a wearable heart rate sensor). Claims 13 and 14 recite iteratively determining modified “what-if” risk levels for different scenarios when a calculated risk exceeds a threshold until the predicted risk is below the threshold, which further describes additional evaluative and planning calculations that a human actor could perform mentally or with aid of pen and paper.
However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, 15, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 1 includes computer-implementation by a processor and receipt of the risk data in memory of the processor, while claim 15 similarly includes a processor and a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon that cause the system to perform the method, and claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform the method. These additional elements, when considered in the context of each claim as a whole, merely serve to automate the otherwise-abstract mental and mathematical steps (as described above), and thus amount to instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, a human actor could mentally obtain risk data (e.g. by looking at it) and perform various mathematical calculations/transformations on the data to determine various ergonomic risk levels and durations for different joints, and use of a processor with a memory to perform such abstract steps merely automates and/or digitizes them so that they occur in a specifically electronic environment. In other words, these generic computer elements are merely invoked as tools with which to “apply” the otherwise-abstract ergonomic risk determination process on a computer. Accordingly, claims 1, 15, and 20 as a whole are each directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 is also not integrated into a practical application under a similar analysis as above. The functions of claims 2-13 and 16-19 are performed with the same additional elements introduced in the independent claims, without introducing any new additional elements of their own, and accordingly also amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using these same additional elements. Claim 14 recites the additional element of modifying a real-world environment in accordance with the modified operational conditions for which the modified cumulative risk is below the threshold, but there is no explanation of how the processor actually operates to actually achieve this functionally-claimed outcome or what the modification actually entails. This limitation thus only recites the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution is actually accomplished, such that this limitation also amounts to a mere instruction to generally “apply” the recited judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements of claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do 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 elements of a processor and memory (and equivalent computing components in claims 15 and 20) for performing the receiving, restructuring, determining, etc. steps of the invention amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As evidence of the generic nature of the above recited additional elements, Examiner notes at least para. [0076] of Applicant’s specification, which states that “the method 100 is computer-implemented and may be performed using any combination of hardware and software as is known in the art,” followed by an exemplary reference to “one or more processors with associated memory storing computer code.” Examiner further notes that computer activities such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, and storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computing, as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding the additional element of claim 14, Examiner again notes that there are no technical details about how the real-world environment is actually modified by the processor, such that this limitation amounts to instructions to “apply” the exception with just the idea of a solution.
Analyzing these additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the elements individually; the overall effect of the computer implementation and high-level idea of modifying a real-world environment in combination is to digitize and/or automate an ergonomic risk calculation operation that could otherwise be achieved mentally by a human actor and/or via mathematical concepts. Thus, when considered as a whole and in combination, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aqlan et al. (US 20160148132 A1) in view of Burdorf et al. (Reference U on the accompanying PTO-892).
Claims 1, 15, and 20
Aqlan teaches a computer-implemented method of assessing cumulative ergonomic risk, the method comprising, by a processor (Aqlan abstract, [0053]-[0065], noting ergonomic risk assessments implemented via a processor and other computer hardware):
in memory of the processor, receiving risk data, wherein the risk data includes, for each task of a plurality of tasks performed by an operator, an indication of an ergonomic risk level, of a plurality of ergonomic risk levels, for the operator performing the task (Aqlan Fig. 3, [0032]-[0033], noting ergonomic risk scores are evaluated on a task-by-task basis for an individual operator, and may be represented by one of a plurality of risk levels (e.g. low, medium, high, and very high) as noted in [0037] & Table 2; see also [0046], noting risk assessments may be captured and stored in system memory);
restructuring the risk data received to determine, across the plurality of tasks, (Aqlan Figs. 3 & 7-8, [0025], [0029]-[0031], [0034], [0039], noting a body map representing various ergonomic risk levels for different body parts (e.g. including joints like neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hips, knees, etc. as shown in Figs. 7-8) of each individual operator is determined and used as a basis for an aggregated or total (i.e. cumulative) risk score for each operator across a plurality of tasks or processes).
In summary, Aqlan teaches a method for assessing task-specific and body-part-specific risk score levels and using them as a basis for determining a total risk score for an operator. Though Aqlan further discusses consideration of task duration for postural risk in the assessment (see [0039] & [0042]) as well as contemplates additional risk quantifications or scoring methodologies (see [0029] & [0039]), it fails to explicitly disclose determining a total time duration for each joint at each risk level and determining the cumulative ergonomic risk based on the total time duration for each joint at each risk level as required by the instant claims. However, Burdorf teaches a method of evaluating ergonomic risk for a given body part that includes evaluating the duration and percentage of time spent at different postural risk levels when performing a plurality of tasks (Burdorf section “Assessment of exposure” and Table 1 on Page 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the task- and body-part-specific ergonomic risk scoring methods of Aqlan to include consideration of total time duration spent at each risk level (e.g. as gleaned from duration and time percentage measurements at each risk level) for a given body part as in Burdorf in order to incorporate a known risk scoring methodology that permits the granular discrimination of different exposure levels and considers all three principal ergonomic exposure dimensions of intensity, frequency, and duration (as suggested by Burdorf abstract & Pg 27). The result of such a combination would include the duration-based assessment of risk levels for a given joint as in Burdorf being applied as the body-part-specific risk scoring methodology of Aqlan such that each of the body parts are evaluated for duration at different risk levels over the performance of various tasks to come up with the body risk map indications of Figs. 7-8 used as a basis for the total/aggregated ergonomic risk of an operator as in [0025] & [0039].
Claims 15 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 1 and are also rejected as above.
Claim 2
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein the indication of the ergonomic risk level for each task of the plurality of tasks includes a respective indication of ergonomic risk level for each joint of the plurality of joints of the operator performing the task (Aqlan Figs. 7-8, [0025], [0029]-[0031], [0034], [0039], noting a body map representing various ergonomic risk levels for different body parts (e.g. including joints like neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hips, knees, etc.) of each individual operator; as shown in Fig. 8, the body map is associated with a given task).
Claim 5
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein the cumulative ergonomic risk determined includes, for each joint of the plurality of joints, a respective indication of cumulative ergonomic risk across the plurality of tasks (Aqlan [0030], [0034], [0039], noting two or more risks may be aggregated for a specific body part or region, e.g. as represented across given tasks as in Fig. 8).
Claim 17 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 5 and is also rejected as above.
Claim 6
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the method of Claim 5, and the combination further teaches wherein each respective indication of cumulative ergonomic risk is a given indication of ergonomic risk level from amongst the plurality of ergonomic risk levels (Aqlan [0029]-[0030], [0034], [0039], noting the risk levels correspond to the same risk scale as outlined in Table 2, including low, medium, high, and very high).
Claim 7
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the method of Claim 5, and the combination further teaches wherein determining the cumulative ergonomic risk comprises: for each joint of the plurality of joints, determining the respective indication of cumulative ergonomic risk across the plurality of tasks based upon (i) a comparison between the determined total time duration for the joint at a first risk level and a total time duration of the plurality of tasks and (ii) a comparison between the determined total time duration for the joint at a second risk level and the total time duration of the plurality of tasks (Burdorf section “Assessment of exposure” and Table 1 on Page 27, noting the joint-specific risk assessment method includes consideration of the percentage of time spent at four different risk level classifications, considered functionally equivalent to comparing a total determined time duration at first and second risk levels against a total time duration across the plurality of tasks because a percentage captures the relative portion of the total time spent in each respective level).
Claim 18 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 7 and is also rejected as above.
Claim 8
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the method of Claim 7, and the combination further teaches wherein the first risk level is a high risk level and the second risk level is a medium risk level (Aqlan Table 2, Burdorf Table 1, noting the different risk levels include medium and high levels).
Claim 9
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein the plurality of tasks form an operation (Aqlan Fig. 4, [0032]-[0033], noting multiple tasks make up a process (i.e. operation)).
Claim 10
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein a first subset of the plurality of tasks form a first operation and a second subset of the plurality of tasks form a second operation and determining the cumulative ergonomic risk based on the total time duration for each joint at each risk level comprises: identifying a cumulative ergonomic risk of the operator performing the first operation; and identifying a cumulative ergonomic risk of the operator performing the second operation (Aqlan Figs. 4-5, [0032]-[0033], [0039], noting risks are aggregated per process, indicating that the cumulative risk scores may be determined (e.g. via consideration of time duration when considered in the context of the combination explained for claim 1) for multiple different processes).
Claim 11
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein at least one indication of ergonomic risk level is a function of operator posture and operator exerted force (Aqlan [0029], [0034], [0039], [0041]-[0044], noting indications of operator posture and force are considered as part of the ergonomic risk assessment).
Claim 13
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the method of Claim 1, and the combination further teaches: responsive to the cumulative ergonomic risk exceeding a threshold, iteratively (i) determining modified risk levels for the operator performing each task of the plurality of tasks under modified operational conditions, (ii) restructuring the modified risk levels to determine, across the plurality of tasks, a modified total time duration for each joint, at each risk level, and (iii) determining modified cumulative ergonomic risk based on the modified total time duration for each joint at each risk level indicated, until the modified cumulative ergonomic risk is below the threshold (Aqlan Fig. 1, [0027]-[0028], noting an iterative process by which risk mitigation solutions to identified risks (e.g. risks contributing to the cumulative risk exceeding an acceptable threshold) are considered until it is determined that the ergonomic risk level of an operator (i.e. the cumulative ergonomic risk, which would be calculated via the time duration-based methods of the combination explained for claim 1 above) is acceptable (i.e. is below a threshold)).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 13 and is also rejected as above.
Claim 14
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the method of Claim 13, and the combination further teaches: modifying a real-world environment in accordance with the modified operational conditions for which the modified cumulative risk is below the threshold (Aqlan [0027]-[0028], [0036], noting implementation of mitigation solutions and controls contributing to the acceptable risk level, including “real-world” environmental modifications like providing training, redesigning job tasks or tools, providing personal protective equipment, etc.).
Claims 3-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aqlan and Burdorf as applied to claims 1 or 15 above, and further in view of Poletti et al. (US 20140074546 A1).
Claim 3
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose determining a cumulative ergonomic risk level for a subset of joints of the plurality of joints based on the total time duration for each joint of the subset at each risk level. However, Poletti teaches that ergonomic risk ratings may be defined for a single body part, a group of body parts, or the entire body as a whole (Poletti [0040], [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body-part-specific and aggregate operator body risk capabilities of the combination to include the ability to determine risk levels for a subset of joints as in Poletti in order to provide additional flexibility in choosing the granularity for anatomy-based ergonomic risk assessment (as suggested by Poletti [0040]).
Claim 16 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 3 and is also rejected as above.
Claim 4
Aqlan in view of Burdorf and Poletti teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 3, but the present combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the subset of joints comprises (i) a right shoulder joint, a right elbow joint, and a right wrist joint, (ii) a left shoulder joint, a left elbow joint, and a left wrist joint, or (iii) neck joints and back joints. However, Aqlan further teaches that existing ergonomic tools like the rapid upper limb assessment may be used for assessing postural and ergonomic stress (Aqlan [0042]), while Burdorf similarly contemplates evaluation of upper extremities as a subset of joints (Burdorf section “development of exposure metrics in epidemiology” on Pg 29). Because these references contemplate ergonomic assessments that focuses on the upper limbs/extremities, it would have been obvious to specify that one of the group of joints as in the combination includes the joints of either upper limb, i.e. the group of shoulder, elbow, and wrist for a right and/or left side.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aqlan and Burdorf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hegde (US 20180000416 A1).
Claim 12
Aqlan in view of Burdorf teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein the risk data received comprises data captured by a (Aqlan [0042], noting field device sensors may provide inputs for the ergonomic assessments). However, the present combination fails to explicitly disclose that the risk data is captured by a wearable device on an operator as required by the claim. However, Hegde teaches that risk data for an ergonomic assessment may be provided by a wearable device mounted to a garment of a worker (Hegde [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the field devices of the combination to include wearable sensors as in Hegde in order to advantageously provide an unobtrusive means of directly and objectively capturing ergonomic risk measurements in a simplified and repeatable manner (as suggested by Hegde [0013]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chee (US 11574270 B1), Baek et al. (US 20240161039 A1), Penfield et al. (US 20240428163 A1), and Bradbury et al. (US 20210241919 A1) describe systems for making ergonomic risk assessments based on analysis of risk data from workers performing various tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN A HRANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-1679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 ET.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/KAREN A HRANEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights