DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed March 30, 2026 and the amendment filed on March 30, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with no claims canceled and claims 1 and 11 currently amended.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
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. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a system (i.e., machine) in claims 1-10 and method (i.e., process) in claims 11-20 for remotely communicating instructions. All claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of Step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant invention is broadly directed to a system and method for “remotely communicating instructions with augmented and virtual reality objects…” (Specification, p. 2, [0002]).
Claim 11 (Currently Amended) recites the following (with emphasis added):
A method for remotely communicating instructions, the method performed by a server communicatively coupled to a first user device and an instructor device, the server, the first user device, and the instructor device individually comprising a memory and a processor, the method comprising:
receiving vicinity information from the first user device, the vicinity information characterizing a location of the first user device,
wherein the vicinity information defines visual content captured by the first user device;
receiving target information, the target information defining a physical measurement of a target person or location requesting assistance;
receiving tool information, the tool information defining a status of a tool and further comprising information that is obtained from the tool by using the tool, wherein the server selects the tool based on the tool information and the physical measurement of the target person or location;
transmitting at least a portion of the vicinity information, the target information, and the tool information to the instructor device, the instructor device configured to present the visual content within an instructor interface based on the received vicinity information and receive input from an instructor through the instructor interface, the input defining an instruction associated with the visual content;
receiving instruction information defining the instruction associated with the visual content from the instructor device,
wherein the instruction information is based at least in part on the target information and the tool information;
transmitting at least a portion of the instruction information to the first user device, the first user device configured to present the instruction overlaid on top of the visual content within a first instructee interface based on the received instruction information; and
updating the instructor interface to display image data transmitted from the user device in response to the target person executing the instruction information.
Claim 11 (Currently Amended) encompasses the abstract idea and had substantially similar features as claim 1 (Currently Amended), which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20.
Claims 1-20 recite the steps for communicating instructions from an instructor to an instructee using remotely connected devices. The system and method are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. A human – using pen and paper – is capable of noting the location of a device, measuring a target, identifying a status of a tool, and using that information while communicating an instruction to an instructee. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite collecting, analyzing, and sending data pertaining to instructing a user. Thus, the steps are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implemented on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include no additional elements other than the abstract idea which include numerous personal devices. The conventional computers over a generic network as presented are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the mental processes and certain methods for organizing human activity for communicating instructions to users.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims do not include the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known, generic computational components performing conventional functions (e.g., a computer performing generic data retrieval and generation). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on personal devices. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montgomerie [US20160291922A1].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Montgomerie discloses:
A system for remotely communicating instructions (Montgomerie, [0065], “…one or more students may share a view of an instructor within an AR environment and may receive instruction from the instructor, as shown in FIG. 3.”), the system comprising:
a server that communicatively couples to a first user device and an instructor device (Montgomerie, [0047], “The remote expert may act as a server, accepting and managing incoming connections from a local user or possibly multiple local users simultaneously. The local user may act as a terminal, possibly connecting to the server (either locally or remotely) and possibly transmitting image data to the server. This relationship also may be reversed, such that the local user may act as a server if needed.”),
the server, the first user device, and the instructor device individually comprising a memory and a processor, the server configured to:
receive vicinity information from the first user device (Montgomerie, [0074], “Upon [the remote expert] receiving the serialized data [from the field service technician], …”),
the vicinity information characterizing a location of the first user device (Montgomerie, [0074], “… the 3D renderer 480 may update a background image such that an expert may see a field service technician's view from the “Local user/Field service” view 400. The 3D renderer 480 may then update the rendered scene's camera view according to the AR coordinates for that scene …”),
wherein the vicinity information defines visual content captured by the first user device (Montgomerie, [0074], “…and may update the positions and existence of 3D objects in the scene.”);
receive target information (Montgomerie, [0160], “Referring to FIG. 14, in one embodiment of an Object Recognition Service 1400, an AR device equipped with a camera 1410 may capture an image of an object…”),
the target information characterizing a physical measurement of a target person or location requesting assistance (Montgomerie, [0160], “That is, for every pixel in the captured image, a depth measurement may also be present, thus possibly giving a 3D mesh for the captured image.”);
receive tool information (Montgomerie’s SDK cited directly below is the method of receiving tool information),
the tool information characterizing a tool (Montgomerie, [0143], “To support animation of such interactions, the Scope SDK may include definitions of a plurality of tools and other objects with predefined interaction parameters.”) and comprising information that is obtained from the tool by using the tool (Montgomerie, [0046], “The SDK also may define a set of standard tools (e.g., wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.) that may be loaded by the remote expert to the local user or vice versa. These tools then may be associated with physical objects to illustrate movements such as, for example, removing a nut. This may be done, for example, by using computer vision object recognition to recognize the shape of the nut, and using mesh analysis to discover the correct angle of address of the tool, as discussed in more detail below.”),
wherein the server selects the tool based on the tool information and the physical measurement of the target person or location (Montgomerie, [0011], (Emphasis added) “… one method comprises: receiving combined augmented reality (AR) coordinates, 3D object information and encoded video frame from client, update a background image based on the encoded video frame, updating a scene view according to the AR coordinates, updating positions and existence of the 3D objects, loading 3D content and instructions from cloud storage, creating an updated rendered view by combining the loaded 3D content and the background image, and returning the updated rendered view to the client.” and see citations above.);
transmit at least a portion of the vicinity information, the target information, and the tool information to the instructor device (Montgomerie, [0010], “…combining the AR coordinates, 3D object information and encoded video frame, and transmitting the combined data to expert.”),
the instructor device configured (Montgomerie, Fig 4, “Expert View 470”) to
present the visual content within an instructor interface based on the received vicinity information (Montgomerie, [0073], “The renderer 430 may then combine the AR coordinates, 3D object information and encoded video frame and may serialize the combined data to pass to the “Expert” view 470 by way of the network 460.” and Montgomerie, [0074], “Upon receiving the serialized data, the 3D renderer 480 may update a background image such that an expert may see a field service technician's view…”) and
receive input from an instructor through the instructor interface (Montgomerie, [0074], “The 3D renderer 480 may then update the rendered scene's camera view according to the AR coordinates for that scene, and may update the positions and existence of 3D objects in the scene. The expert can create new content by adding 3D models or annotating the rendered view through drawing, highlighting or other annotations…”),
the input defining an instruction associated with the visual content (Montgomerie, [0067], “A user interface may be provided for selecting content (3D models, images, videos, text) to illustrate the step-by-step visual instructions.”);
receive instruction information defining the instruction associated with the visual content from the instructor device (Montgomerie, [0065], “…one or more students may share a view of an instructor within an AR environment and may receive instruction from the instructor, as shown in FIG. 3.”),
wherein the instruction information is based at least in part on the target information and the tool information (Montgomerie, [0067], “The Scope SDK may provide software tools to support creation of step-by-step visual instructions in Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR).”); and
transmit at least a portion of the instruction information to the first user device (Montgomerie, [0065], “…one or more students may share a view of an instructor within an AR environment and may receive instruction from the instructor, as shown in FIG. 3.”),
the first user device configured to present the instruction overlaid on top of the visual content within a first instructee interface based on the received instruction information (Montgomerie, [0074], “The expert can create new content by adding 3D models or annotating the rendered view through drawing, highlighting or other annotations, and the updated rendered view is returned to the “Local user/Field service” view 400 by way of the network 460.”).
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), Montgomerie discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the physical measurement of the target person or location is obtained by using the tool (Montgomerie, [0159], “Accordingly, the Scope SDK may provide a mechanism to recognize such objects during an AR interaction. Two such mechanisms according to embodiments of the present disclosure are discussed below with respect to FIGS. 14 and 15.” and Montgomerie, [0159], “Referring to FIG. 14, in one embodiment of an Object Recognition Service 1400, an AR device equipped with a camera 1410 may capture an image of an object, … [and], for every pixel in the captured image, a depth measurement may also be present, thus possibly giving a 3D mesh for the captured image.”).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Montgomerie discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the tool is communicatively coupled with one or more of the first user device and the instructor device (Montgomerie, [0046], “The SDK also may define a set of standard tools (e.g., wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.) that may be loaded by the remote expert to the local user or vice versa.”).
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented), Montgomerie discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the physical measurement of the target person or location is a real-time measurement of one or more of
a human condition and
a human function (Montgomerie, [0169], “Embodiments of the present disclosure may provide maintenance (e.g., automotive, machinery, aircraft, etc.) support…”).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Montgomerie discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the instructor interface includes a change option to change the instruction (Montgomerie, Fig 4, “Expert can create new content by adding 3D Models or “Drawing” or highlighting” and Montgomerie, Fig 7, Sequence Editor 700 and Montgomerie, Fig 17, “Expert annotates video image with 3D models, drawing, text, documentation, etc. 1710”) and
the server is further configured to
facilitate exchange of the change to the instruction between the instructor device and the first user device (Montgomerie, Fig 4 “Update view of client via network” and Montgomerie, Fig 17, “Annotated video image transmitted from expert to user 1720”).
Regarding claim 7 (Previously Presented), Montgomerie discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the presentation of the instruction by the first user device includes a visual representation of a usage of a tool (Montgomerie, [0145], “For example, the Scope SDK may define interaction points for wrench 1100, as shown in FIG. 11.”) with respect to the target person or location (Montgomerie, [0151-0152], “An exemplary wrench model 1100 may also define an up point 1150. These points on the wrench may interact with corresponding points on a nut 1200, as shown in FIG. 12.”).
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), Montgomerie discloses:
The system of claim 7, wherein the physical measurement of the target person or location is a last measured reading of one or more of
a human condition and
a human function (Montgomerie, [0157], “These points on the nut may interact with corresponding points on a wrench 1100 as shown in FIG. 11.” In other words, the physical measurements of the nut are a last measured reading of various components related to the human function of using a wrench to tighten the nut.).
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented), Montgomerie discloses:
The system of claim 7, wherein the instructor interface includes a tool option to allow the instructor to interact with a visual representation of the tool to define the instruction on the usage of the tool with respect to the target person or location (Montgomerie, [0063], “as shown in FIG. 19, may include receiving combined AR coordinates, 3D object information and encoded video frame from user (1900), updating a background image (1905), update the rendered scene's camera view according to the AR coordinates (1910), updating the positions and existence of 3D objects (1915), loading 3D content and instructions from cloud storage (1920), creating new content by adding 3D models or annotating the rendered view (1925) and returning the updated rendered view to the user (1930).”),
wherein the instruction on the usage of the tool is based on a physical measurement of a second tool (Montgomerie, [0160], “Referring to FIG. 14, in one embodiment of an Object Recognition Service 1400, an AR device equipped with a camera 1410 may capture an image of an object, may analyze the captured image to generate a point cloud representing the object and may transmit the point cloud data to a cloud service 1420. That is, for every pixel in the captured image, a depth measurement may also be present, thus possibly giving a 3D mesh for the captured image.”).
Claims 11-13 and 15-19 recite similar limitations to claims 1-3 and 15-19. For citations on prior art, see rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-19 above.
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.
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 (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.
Claims 4, 10, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomerie and Merjanian [US20190373304A1].
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Montgomerie discloses the use of tool information (as cited above), but Montgomerie does not explicitly disclose including an operational status of a tool within the tool information.
Merjanian, however, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the tool information includes an operational status of the tool (Merjanian, [0056], “Based on the determination that the item [or tool] is available for use at the location 110, the instructor device 140 may present the visual representation of item within the instructor interface for selection by the instructor 142.” A tool being available for use is indicative of the tools operability.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the augmented reality communication exchange system of Montgomerie the operational status of a tool as taught by Merjanian as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the technique of Merjanian would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Merjanian to the teachings of Montgomerie would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Further, ascertaining the operational status of a tool used in Montgomerie would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow an instructor to provide more efficient and relevant assistance by only suggesting tools available to the user for completing the necessary instruction.
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Montgomerie discloses the use of visual representations of tools presented in the instructor interface (as cited above), but Montgomerie does not explicitly disclose the visual representation of the tool being presented in the instructor interface based on a determination that the tool is available for use at the location and a determination that a status of the tool indicates operability.
Merjanian, however, discloses:
The system of claim 9, wherein the visual representation of the tool is presented in the instructor interface based on a determination that the tool is available for use at the location (Merjanian, claim 10, “The system of claim 9, wherein the visual representation of the item is presented in the instructor interface based on a determination that the item is available for use by a user at the location.”), and a determination that a status of the tool indicates operability (Merjanian, [0056], “Based on the determination that the item [or tool] is available for use at the location 110, the instructor device 140 may present the visual representation of item within the instructor interface for selection by the instructor 142.” A tool being available for use is indicative of the tools operability.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the augmented reality communication exchange system of Montgomerie the visual representation of a tool based on the availability and usability of the tool at the user location as taught by Merjanian as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the technique of Merjanian would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Merjanian to the teachings of Montgomerie would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Further, ascertaining the availability and usability of the tool at the user location used in Montgomerie would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow an instructor to provide more efficient and relevant assistance by only suggesting tools available to the user for completing the necessary instruction.
Claims 14 and 20 recite similar limitations to claims 4 and 10. For citations on prior art, see rejection of claims 4 and 10 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, in the Remarks filed March 30, 2026 on pages 7-9, the Applicant argues:
“Applicant submits that the claims are analogous to those found patent-eligible in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the Federal Circuit held that claims focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities that enabled a computer security system to do things it could not do before are directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality.” (Remarks, p. 7, para 3);
“As stated in the 2019 PEG, Step 2A Prong Two requires examiners to evaluate whether the claim as a whole "integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception" and the claims are "thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions." MPEP § 2106.05 and 2019 PEG, page 54. This includes a claim that will "apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Id.” (Remarks, p. 8, para 2);
“Applicant respectfully asserts that the improved display recited in amended independent claims 1 and 11 recites "a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods." Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As stated in Core Wireless, "[a]lthough the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices." Id. at 1362. In particular, the claims as currently amended recite a particular display that updates both user device and instructor device displays based on the communication of image, video, or other sensor data. Like the case in Core Wireless, the claims "restrain[] the type of data that can be displayed" based on the real-time emergency situation, ultimately "improv[ing] the efficiency of using the electronic device" and improving the efficiency of responding to a remote emergency situation. Id. at 1362-1363.” (Remarks, p. 8, para 3);
“Moreover, as previously mentioned, the systems and embodiments described in amended independent claims 1 and 11 disclose systems and methods of optimizing remote responses to emergency situations by tailoring user and instructor devices to the specific emergency situation. The ability for the system to adapt in real time to continuous sensor data goes beyond known interface technology. As amended, the claims illustrate a clear improved user device and instructor device that constantly learns from the ongoing emergency situation.” (Remarks, p. 8, para 4).
“Applicant respectfully asserts that if the analysis proceeds to Step 2B (which it shouldn't), the claims expressly provide improvements to technology by providing a distinct and unconventional combination of features recited in independent claim 1 (and similarly in independent claim 11) that cannot be divorced from the analysis for patent eligibility. The unconventional arrangement realizes improvements over well-known systems and methods. As mentioned above, the claimed systems and methods describe an improved interface that constantly ingests data and updates multiple devices to make determinations about an ongoing emergency situation. Unlike conventional systems and known interface technology, the claimed system updates in real-time based on additional sensor data that is received in real-time. This improvement illustrates a clear inventive concept such that the claims, as whole, provide a distinct and unconventional combination of features under Step 2B.” (Remarks, p. 9, para 3).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant’s reliance on Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (hereinafter, “Finjan”) and Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (hereinafter, “Core Wireless”) is not well founded.
Although, in Finjan, “the Federal Circuit held that claims focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities that enabled a computer security system to do things it could not do before are directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality” (Remarks, p. 7, para 3), this is not analogous to the instant application as currently claimed. As detailed in the corresponding section above and further below, the instant application, as currently claimed, does not introduce any limitation beyond using a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Although Core Wireless does pertain to user interfaces, which is a feature held in common with the instant application, Core Wireless determined the claims in question were directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers due to the limitations disclosing a “specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” Id. at 1362. This does not apply to the instant application as the display method utilized within the instant application is not specific. The instant application does not detail the user interface of any of the disclosed devices in a sufficient manner to identify an improvement in the functioning of a computer.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3D 1350 (Fed Circ. 2016) (hereinafter, “EPG”) more adequately resembles the instant application as currently claimed. Within EPG, the referenced claim limitations are directed toward a method of detecting and analyzing events in real time for displaying the aggregated information. The court determined, “the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.” Id. at 1351. The instant application merely utilizes computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The notion of altering the frequency of data collection by a system (e.g., real-time) is not evidence of a practical application and is not an inventive concept.
The hardware utilized by the claimed invention is: a generic server, generic user devices, sensors to collect generic data, and generic communication network(s). The information collected by the sensors are: vicinity information, target information, tool information, and instruction information. This information is so broadly detailed within the instant application that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims as a whole appear to be no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The definition of each data set, as provided by the specification is listed below:
Vicinity Information: “information about the physical environment in or near the location where one or more of the target(s) and/or the instructee(s) (or candidate instructees) may be located” (Instant Application, [0020]).
Target Information: “information about the subject for which the instructor and instructee intend to work together to render assistance or otherwise act upon” (Instant Application, [0023]).
Tool Information: “information about a tool … accessible or otherwise available for use by the instructee in rendering assistance to the target” (Instant Application, [0032]).
Instruction Information: “information provided in whole or in part by the instructor, which may be intended to directly or indirectly aid the instructee in rendering assistance or otherwise acting upon a target” (Instant Application, [0033]).
Given the broad disclosure of the data sets, the specification does not remedy the broad limitations recited within the claims. To further illustrate how the claims recite abstract ideas, the following example is provided below. First, the Examiner provides the amended claim 1 for ease of reference:
A system for remotely communicating instructions, the system comprising:
a server that communicatively couples to a first user device and an instructor device, the server, the first user device, and the instructor device individually comprising a memory and a processor, the server configured to:
receive vicinity information from the first user device, the vicinity information characterizing a location of the first user device,
wherein the vicinity information defines visual content captured by the first user device;
receive target information, the target information characterizing a physical measurement of a target person or location requesting assistance;
receive tool information, the tool information characterizing a tool and comprising information that is obtained from the tool by using the tool,
wherein the server selects the tool based on the tool information and the physical measurement of the target person or location;
transmit at least a portion of the vicinity information, the target information, and the tool information to the instructor device,
the instructor device configured to present the visual content within an instructor interface based on the received vicinity information and receive input from an instructor through the instructor interface, the input defining an instruction associated with the visual content;
receive instruction information defining the instruction associated with the visual content from the instructor device,
wherein the instruction information is based at least in part on the target information and the tool information;
transmit at least a portion of the instruction information to the first user device,
the first user device configured to present the instruction overlaid on top of the visual content within a first instructee interface based on the received instruction information; and
update the instructor interface to display image data transmitted from the user device in response to the target person executing the instruction information.
Claim 1 of the instant application encompasses the following example, excluding the additional elements which fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (e.g., the server, user devices, sensors, and network), despite the following example being solely performed in the human mind with only a pencil and one or more notebooks as an aid:
A human for communicating instructions, the human comprising:
a notebook that communicatively couples to a first user paper and an instructor paper, the notebook, the first user paper, and the instructor paper individually comprising a blank sheet, the notebook configured to:
receive vicinity information from the human writing down information about a location of the first user paper,
wherein the vicinity information defines drawings made on the first user paper;
receive target information, the target information being about a physical measurement of a person or location making a request of the human (i.e., the human writes down an address of a person that wants help);
receive tool information, the tool information being about a tool and comprising information that is obtained from the tool by using the tool (i.e., the human writes down notes about a measuring tape’s measurement),
wherein the human selects the tool based on the tool information and the physical measurement of the person or location (i.e., the human makes a decision based on an observation);
transmit at least a portion of the vicinity information, the target information, and the tool information to the instructor paper (i.e., the human combines the collected notes into one paper),
the instructor paper configured to present the visual content within an instructor notebook (e.g., a separate notebook where the instructor paper belongs) based on the received vicinity information and receive input from an instructor (e.g., the human or another human) through the instructor notebook, the input defining an instruction associated with the visual content (i.e., the human or another human writes information associated with a drawing in the instructor notebook);
receive instruction information defining the instruction associated with the visual content from the instructor paper (e.g., one human passes a paper to another human with instruction information on it that is associated with a drawing from the instructor paper),
wherein the instruction information is based at least in part on the target information and the tool information;
transmit at least a portion of the instruction information to the first user paper (i.e., transcribe the instruction information to a different piece of paper),
the first user paper configured to present the instruction overlaid on top of the visual content within a first instructee notebook based on the received instruction information (i.e., the first user paper is on top of the first instructee notebook); and
update the instructor notebook to display drawings transmitted from the user paper in response to the person executing the instruction information (i.e., add new drawings from the user paper after the other person completes an instruction).
The example above is intended to loosely illustrate to the Applicant how broadly the instant application is currently recited. The only technical features are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements (e.g., the previously identified additional elements); therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102, in the Remarks filed March 30, 2026 on pages 9-12, the Applicant argues:
“the system in Montgomerie merely performs image analysis to recognize tools. Montgomerie discloses "the Scope SDK may include definitions of a plurality of tools and other objects with predefined interaction parameters." Montgomerie at [0143]. The "definition" of these tools in Montgomerie is to "provid[e] an easily generalizable way to interface with various tool types and hardware types." Id. at [0144]. The tools used in Montgomerie do not provide additional "information" to a user; rather, the tool definitions illustrate how a tool can interact with the augmented reality environment.
In contrast, the system recited in independent claim 1 is able to determine what health information or other information can be obtained by using a particular instrument, such as a blood pressure monitor or AED. See Specification at [0032]. And claim 1 recites that the "server selects the tool based on the tool information" and the "tool information ... compris[es] information that is obtained from the tool by using the tool." Such information is neither taught nor suggested by Montgomerie.” (Remarks, p. 11, paras 1-2)
The Examiner respectfully submits that Montgomerie discloses tool information that comprises information that is obtained from the tool by using the tool. In [0046] of Montgomerie, the disclosure recites, “The SDK also may define a set of standard tools (e.g., wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.) that may be loaded by the remote expert to the local user or vice versa. These tools then may be associated with physical objects to illustrate movements such as, for example, removing a nut. This may be done, for example, by using computer vision object recognition to recognize the shape of the nut, and using mesh analysis to discover the correct angle of address of the tool, as discussed in more detail below.” The SDK is the method for providing the tool information as necessary. In this recitation, the system of Montgomerie provides tool information characterizing a tool (e.g., wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.) and comprising information that is obtained from the tool by using the tool, such as using a wrench to remove a nut.
Furthermore, regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102, in the Remarks filed March 30, 2026 on pages 9-12, the Applicant argues:
“The "definitions" in Montgomerie are not akin to the tool information obtained by using the tool as recited in independent claim 1, and Montgomerie's definitions do not provide insight in responding to emergency situations. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Montgomerie does not disclose that tool information includes "information that is obtained from the tool by using the tool" as recited in amended independent claim 1” (Remarks, p. 11, para 3).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Montgomerie recites tool information as defined above, and, in response to applicant's argument that “Montgomerie’s definitions do not provide insight in responding to emergency situations”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm 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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights