DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 07/08/2026.
Claims 12-25 are pending in this application. This action is made Final.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant argued Meany does not describe the scanner as having a screen on which a list of possible replacement parts are displayed prior to scanning or that potential matching parts are displayed on a mobile device screen. Thus, Meany does not disclose the step of "displaying a list of possible replacement parts on a screen of a processor-controlled mobile device, the replacement parts corresponding to the different components of the system, and enabling selection of a specific replacement part from the displayed list by a user of the mobile device" as recited in Applicant's Claim 12.
As per A), the Examiner respectfully disagrees as Meany teaches that alternative to a 3D scanner in a retail location, a mobile device scanner may also be utilized which is known to include a screen to similarly display the parts displayed in Figs.8-12 (Meany, para.27, 31, 51, 62, mobile device scanner). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., list of possible replacement parts are displayed prior to scanning) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Meany teaches “displaying a list of possible replacement parts on a screen of a processor-controlled mobile device (Meany, para.27, 31, 51, 62, mobile device scanner), the replacement parts corresponding to the components of the system (Meany, Fig.8, para.64, retrieved matching parts corresponding to the component), and enabling selection of a specific replacement part from the displayed list by a user of the mobile device (Meany, Fig.8, para.64, retrieved matching parts displayed). Cruz teaches displaying a list of replacement parts corresponding to a plurality of different components of a system (Cruz, Fig.5, list 508, para.15, 30-31, 33, individual component parts listed).
B) Applicant argued the list 508 in Cruz is a result of the scanning and matching process, not a pre-determined list of possible replacement parts for different components of a system that is displayed to enable user selection before any scanning occurs. In other words, Cruz displays parts identified from a scan of a specific object, not a list of replacement parts for different components of a system that enables the user to select a specific replacement part as recited in Applicant's claims.
As per B), the Examiner respectfully disagrees in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., enable user selection before any scanning occurs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Cruz teaches displaying a list of replacement parts corresponding to a plurality of different components of a system (Cruz, Fig.5, list 508, para.15, 30-31, 33, individual component parts listed).
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.
Claims 12-15 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meany et al. (“Meany”, US 2017/0372127) in view of Piemonte et al. (“Piemonte”, US 2014/0232634) and further in view of Cruz (US 2014/0244433).
As per claim 12, Meany teaches a method for visualizing replacement parts for a plurality of components of a system, the method comprising the steps of:
displaying a list of possible replacement parts on a screen of a processor-controlled mobile device (Meany, para.27, 31, 51, 62, mobile device scanner), the replacement parts corresponding to the components of the system (Meany, Fig.8, para.64, retrieved matching parts corresponding to the component), and enabling selection of a specific replacement part from the displayed list by a user of the mobile device (Meany, Fig.8, para.64, retrieved matching parts displayed);
downloading 3D data of a selected replacement part from an external server via a network in response to a selection by the user, the 3D data containing spatial information regarding visually discernable properties of the selected replacement part (Meany, para.26, 46, 49, database 40 of 3D object scans);
displaying a perspective view of the selected replacement part with the visually discernable properties on the screen of the mobile device from an initial viewing angle (Meany, Fig.10, para.66, rotatable visualization of part).
However, Meany does not teach determining a change in an orientation of the mobile device when the mobile device is moved to an altered orientation; and displaying another perspective view of the selected replacement part with the visually discernable properties on the screen of the mobile device from an altered viewing angle corresponding to the altered orientation. Piemonte teaches a method of 3D object visualization that includes determining a change in an orientation of the mobile device when the mobile device is moved to an altered orientation (Piemonte, Fig.2-3; para.35-38, perspective view changed with phone angle change); and displaying another perspective view of the selected replacement part with the visually discernable properties on the screen of the mobile device from an altered viewing angle corresponding to the altered orientation (Piemonte, Fig.2-3, para.35-38, perspective view changed with phone angle change). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Piemonte’s teaching with Meany’s method in order to alternatively interact with objects.
Furthermore, the method of Meany and Piemonte does not teach the replacement parts corresponding to a plurality of different components of the system. Cruz teaches a method of scanning an image and displaying a list of replacement parts corresponding to a plurality of different components of a system (Cruz, Fig.5, list 508, para.15, 30-31, 33, individual component parts listed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Cruz’s teaching with the method of Meany and Piemonte in order to select from a list of possible replacements included in the entire object.
As per claim 13, the method of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches the method according to claim 12 wherein the system is a passenger transport system (Meany, Fig.4, para.60, automotive part industry).
As per claim 14, the method of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches the method according to claim 12 wherein the altered orientation of the mobile device is determined on a basis of signals provided by acceleration sensors in the mobile device (Piemonte, para.35, accelerometer).
As per claim 15, the method of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches the method according to claim 12 including determining touches on the screen of the mobile device and changing at least one of a size and an orientation of either of the perspective views of the selected replacement part depending on the touches determined (Piemonte, para.15, continuous contact on virtual button changes perspective).
As per claim 19, the method of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches the method according to claim 12 wherein the 3D data are CAD data of the selected replacement part (Meany, para.32, 56, CAD files).
As per claim 20, the method of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches the method according to claim 12 including downloading the 3D data from the external server via a wireless network (Piemonte, para.2-3, WiFi network).
As per claim 21, the device of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches a mobile device comprising: a processor adapted to perform the method steps according to claim 12 for the system; a camera for taking photos of components of the system (Piemonte, para.30, camera 145); and the screen for displaying the list and the perspective views (Meany, Fig.8, para.64).
As per claim 22, the device of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches the mobile device according to claim 21 including at least one acceleration sensor for signaling to the processor the altered orientation of the mobile device (Piemonte, para.35, accelerometer).
As per claim 23, the product of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches a computer program product comprising computer-readable instructions which, when executed by a processor-controlled mobile device, cause the mobile device to execute, control or implement the method steps according to claim 12 (Meany, para.27, 31, 51, mobile device; para.64, system memory).
As per claim 24, the medium of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having the computer program product according to claim 23 stored thereon (Meany, para.27, 31, 51, mobile device; para.64, system memory).
As per claim 25, Meany teaches a method for visualizing replacement parts for a plurality of components of a passenger transport system (Meany, Fig.4, para.60, automotive part industry), the method comprising the steps of:
identifying the passenger transport system to an external server by a user of a processor-controlled mobile device connected to the external server via a network (Meany, para.26, 46, 49, database 40 of 3D object scans; remote network);
receiving from the external server a list of possible replacement parts for the components of the identified passenger transport system (Meany, para.25-29, 31, 51-57, 62, mobile device scanner; Fig.8, para.64, retrieved matching parts displayed);
displaying the list on a screen of the mobile device and enabling selection of a specific replacement part from the displayed list by the user of the mobile device (Meany, para.25-29, 31, 51-57, 62, mobile device scanner; Fig.8, para.64, retrieved matching parts displayed);
downloading from the external server to the mobile device 3D data of one of the replacement parts in response to a selection by the user, the 3D data containing spatial information regarding visually discernable properties of the selected replacement part (Meany, para.26, 46, 49, database 40 of 3D object scans);
displaying a perspective view of the selected replacement part with the visually discernable properties on the screen of the mobile device from an initial viewing angle (Meany, Fig.10, para.66, rotatable visualization of part).
However, Meany does not teach determining a change in an orientation of the mobile device when the mobile device is moved to an altered orientation; and displaying another perspective view of the selected replacement part with the visually discernable properties on the screen of the mobile device from an altered viewing angle corresponding to the altered orientation. Piemonte teaches a method of 3D object visualization that includes determining a change in an orientation of the mobile device when the mobile device is moved to an altered orientation (Piemonte, Fig.2-3; para.35-38, perspective view changed with phone angle change); and displaying another perspective view of the selected replacement part with the visually discernable properties on the screen of the mobile device from an altered viewing angle corresponding to the altered orientation (Piemonte, Fig.2-3, para.35-38, perspective view changed with phone angle change). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Piemonte’s teaching with Meany’s method in order to alternatively interact with objects.
Furthermore, the method of Meany and Piemonte does not teach the replacement parts corresponding to a plurality of different components of the system. Cruz teaches a method of scanning an image and displaying a list of replacement parts corresponding to a plurality of different components of a system (Cruz, Fig.5, list 508, para.15, 30-31, 33, individual component parts listed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Cruz’s teaching with the method of Meany and Piemonte in order to select from a list of possible replacements included in the entire object.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meany et al. (“Meany”, US 2017/0372127), Piemonte et al. (“Piemonte”, US 2014/0232634) and Cruz (US 2014/0244433) in view of Hasan et al. (“Hasan”, US 9,965,793).
As per claim 16, the method of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz teaches the method according to claim 12 including taking a photo of a component of the system with a camera of the mobile device (Meany, para.2, 62, camera imaging), however does not teach displaying the photo together with either of the perspective views of the selected replacement part on the screen of the mobile device. Hasan teaches a method of displaying the photo together with either of the perspective views of the selected replacement part on the screen of the mobile device (Hasan, Fig.1C, col.3, line 58-col.4, line 7, captured image with items). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Hasan’s teaching with the method of Meany, Piemonte and Cruz in order to compare objects.
As per claim 17, the method of Meany, Piemonte, Cruz and Hasan teaches the method according to claim 16 wherein the photo and the either perspective view of the selected replacement part are displayed at least partially superimposed (Hasan, col.9, lines 7-13, superimposed on image).
As per claim 18, the method of Meany, Piemonte, Cruz and Hasan teaches the method according to claim 16 including transmitting the photo together with the another perspective view of the selected replacement part in the altered viewing angle to an external server (Meany, para.46, claim 6, scan data transmitted to remote network).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Callahan et al. (US 2004/0019534) teaches a method of displaying a list of individual component parts of an object.
Lagoni et al. (US 2016/0260152) teaches a method of displaying a list of compatible replacement parts for a product without scanning the object.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm.
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, William L Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/S.M./
Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights