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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026-04-14 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks made in an amendment filed 2026-04-14 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered. In view of the amended claims and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments is made in view of the previous applied references as presented in this Office Action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims are therefore moot.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes MPEP § 2181(I)(A), which states “When applicant merely states an intended use of the claimed invention in the preamble (e.g., ‘A device for printing, comprising ...’), the examiner should not construe such language as reciting a means-plus-function limitation.” Thus, the previous 112(f) analysis of claim 21 for the limitation “An apparatus for registering…” is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Independent claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the amendment(s) filed 2026-04-14 introduce new matter into the independent claims, which affects the scope of the claims and was not described in the application as originally filed.
Independent claims 1 and 21 were amended to recite: “…using an identification capture device to capture an identification code of the real target device, wherein the identification code is attached to the real target device, by providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure from a location of the mobile device to the location information of the real target device”. To support this amendment, applicant cites their specification (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393443), paragraph ¶0242 (see Remarks, p. 8):
In some cases, when used by a field service engineer (FSE), the application may present a list of components where a malfunction has been detected and/or where maintenance is needed. In some cases, these features are highlighted and/or in some way marked within the displayed building model, e.g., making it easier for an FSE to know where attention is needed. An FSE might have to ask a facility manager where a malfunctioning device is located or possibly look at interconnect and architectural drawings. This can be a cumbersome process at large sites such as a multistory building, airports, and hospitals where a malfunctioning window may not have even been noticed by site personnel or in cases where the malfunctioning device was self-detected through the network. To facilitate an FSE, the application may provide directions to a particular component in question. For example, the application may display a route overlaid on a plan view of a building indicating the route that the FSE should take. In some cases, such as when the application is operated on a tablet or mobile device that is automatically located within the building, the application may provide turn-by-turn directions—similar to turn-by-turn directions used in a (e.g., GPS) navigations systems. While discussed in terms of directing an FSE to a device requiring service (e.g., malfunctioning device), the application may provide maps and/or routes that can be used by any user of the application. In some cases, antennas (e.g., windows having antennas) or any other geo-location sensor and receiver network (e.g., as disclosed herein) can be used to locate the device. Methods of location detection and routing users using a network are further described in International Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US17/31106, filed on May 4, 2017, titled “WINDOW ANTENNAS,” which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
This cited portion of applicant’s specification discloses providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure from a location of the mobile device to the location of a real target device. However, to the best of the examiner’s understanding, this portion does not disclose: using an identification capture device to capture an identification code of the real target device … by providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure from a location of the mobile device to the location information of the real target device, as required by amended independent claims 1 and 21. In other words, the cited portion does not disclose: capturing an identification code of the real target device by (i.e., by means of, as a result of) the navigating of the mobile device to the target device.
Furthermore, examiner was unable to locate support for this limitation in applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. Thus, independent claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Examiner reminds applicant that when an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a), a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not “new matter” is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure, including limitations introduced to the claims in an amendment. Please see MPEP § 2163.
Claims 3-5, 7-15, 17-18, and 30-31 depend upon claim 1 and are therefore similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 24 and 25 depend upon claim 21 and are therefore similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-15, 17, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0325047 to Conner et al. (“Conner”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0198938 to Steele et al. (“Steele”).
As to claim 1, Conner discloses method comprising: identifying a location information of a real target device at least in part by using a mobile device to select a virtual target device in a virtual representation of an enclosure in which the real target device is disposed, wherein the virtual target device is a virtual representation of the real target device, wherein the real target device is included in one or more real target devices disposed in the enclosure, and/or using geographic information locating the real target device (Conner, Fig. 3 and ¶¶0041-0042, step 302; please also see ¶0038); using an identification capture device to capture an identification code of the real target device, wherein the identification code is attached to the real target device (Conner, Fig. 2 and ¶0038) by providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure from a location of the mobile device to the location information of the real target device (Conner, Figs. 3 and ¶¶0041-0042, step 304; please also see: ¶0029; ¶0038; Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶0046-0053). Examiner notes that the method 300 of Conner leads the user to the real target device by providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure (i.e., ¶0029 "visual data is generally presented in the visual field using a translucent overlay of graphical elements, including without limitation…location information, maps and other indications of travel directions and position movement within a visual field"), and that the maintenance system automatically scans the visual field and recognizes the passive tags (i.e., captures the identification code of the real target device) when the user enters the area of the target device after having been guided there by the system. Thus, Conner's system/method uses an identification capture device to capture the identification code of the real target device, wherein the identification code is attached to the real target device, by (i.e., by means of, as a result of) providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure from a location of the mobile device to the location information of the real target device.
Conner does not disclose: registering the real target device at least in part by linking the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure; and commissioning the real target device, the commissioning comprising associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address.
However, Steele discloses: registering the real target device at least in part by linking the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure (Steele, Figs. 4, 10; ¶0083, step 430; see also ¶0077); and commissioning the real target device, the commissioning comprising associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address (Steele, Figs. 1 and 4, step 440; ¶¶0037-0039, ¶¶0084-0087, and ¶0121; the installed components are configured for communication via the network, including associating installed components to be controlled by other devices/components in the network. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this communication via the network necessarily includes associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address).
Conner and Steele are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: (i) electric systems controlled by a computer; (ii) program-control systems: using digital processors, computer-assisted repair and maintenance of system components, helmet- or head-mounted display, and/or barcode(s); used for picking up, measuring, testing, and/or placing articles or objects; and/or for domestic, home control, automation, and/or smart house applications; and/or (iii) input arrangements and/or combined input-output arrangements for interaction between user and computer based on graphical user interfaces. Both disclosures are related to performing maintenance and/or installing components in a building/facility. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Conner to incorporate the teachings of Steele to include: registering the real target device at least in part by linking the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure; and commissioning the real target device, the commissioning comprising associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address. Doing so would "enable efficient and flexible setup and configuration of a building automation system to be installed and deployed during construction of the building" (Steele, ¶0004).
As to claim 3, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the virtual representation of the enclosure is displayed on the mobile device, and the virtual representation includes virtual representations of at least some of the one or more real target devices (Steele, Figs. 4-9 and ¶0080, step 420).
As to claim 4, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the navigation information is provided according to movement of the mobile device in the enclosure (Conner, Fig. 3, step 304, which is further disclosed in Fig. 4 and ¶¶0046-0049). Examiner notes that "The process 400 has determined the macrolocation of the user, by identifying the macrolocation data associated with the location tag recognized in the current visual field (step 404) … Using the macrolocation of the user, the macrolocation of the target apparatus, and detailed information associated with the maintenance site, the process 400 plots a route from the macrolocation of the user to the macrolocation of the target apparatus" (emphasis added); thus, Conner's apparatus will provide navigation information to the user based on whatever location tags are currently visible in the visual field, i.e., the navigation information is provided based on the movement of the mobile device throughout the enclosure.
As to claim 8, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising updating the virtual representation of the enclosure according to the registering of the target device (Steele, Figs. 4, 14-16, and ¶0095).
As to claim 9, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the virtual representation of the enclosure is derived from and/or comprises an architectural model of the enclosure (Steele, Figs. 4-9 and ¶0076-79).
As to claim 10, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising updating the architectural model according to registration of the real target device (Steele, Figs. 4, 14-16, and ¶0095-96).
As to claim 11, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising determining a status of the real target device at least in part by utilizing the virtual representation of the enclosure, the virtual representation of the real target device, and associated information obtained through utilizing the capture device (Steele, Figs. 14, 21; ¶0077, ¶0094, and ¶0111).
As to claim 12, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising (a) initiating servicing of the real target device when the status determined indicates a servicing need (Steele, ¶0117), and (b) updating the status determined upon completion of the servicing (Conner, Fig. 3 and ¶0044).
As to claim 13, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the geographic information is an absolute information (Conner, Figs. 1-4, ¶0041, step 302, ¶0024, and ¶0038).
As to claim 14, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the absolute information is derived at least in part from a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver or from a ultrawide band (UWB) receiver (Conner, Figs. 1-4, ¶0041, step 302, ¶0024, and ¶0038).
As to claim 15, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the geographic information is a relative location in the virtual representation of the enclosure (Conner, Figs. 1-4, ¶0041, step 302, ¶0024, and ¶0038).
As to claim 17, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising using the identification code to populate (a) the virtual representation of the enclosure and/or (b) at least one associated database of the virtual representation of the enclosure, with: a virtual representation of the real target device and/or associated information of the real target device (Steele, Figs. 4, 9-10; ¶0083, "If the user changes the [prepopulated serial number] 57 to another code, the device may change the symbol to match the device type corresponding to the new code entered by the user").
As to claim 21, Conner discloses an apparatus for registering one or more real target devices (Conner, Fig. 1 and ¶0016, maintenance assistance system 100), the apparatus comprising at least one controller having circuitry (Conner, Fig. 1 and ¶0016-19, processor architecture 102), wherein the at least one controller is configured to: operatively couple to an identification capture device (Conner, Figs. 1-2, ¶0017, and ¶0023-24, visual field analysis module 108; and ¶0038-39, the camera 206 recognizes the macrolocation indicators 212 and microlocation indicators 214) and to a virtual representation of an enclosure in which the one or more real target devices are disposed (Conner, ¶0048, "The macrolocation of the target apparatus and detailed information about the maintenance site are known to the process 400, and are stored in an accessible memory structure. Maintenance site data may include maps, diagrams or schematics, and navigation information for the maintenance site"; please also see ¶0029); receive, or direct receipt of, location information of a real target device at least in part by selection of a virtual target device in the virtual representation of an enclosure in which the real target device is disposed, wherein the virtual target device is a virtual representation of the real target device, wherein the real target device is included in the one or more real target devices, and/or geographic information locating the real target device (Conner, Fig. 3 and ¶¶0041-0042, step 302; please also see ¶0038); receive, or direct receipt of, identification information of the real target device from the identification capture device configured to capture an identification code of the real target device, wherein the identification code is attached to the real target device (Conner, Fig. 2 and ¶0038), by providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure from a location of the mobile device to the location information of the real target device (Conner, Figs. 3 and ¶¶0041-0042, step 304; please also see: ¶0029; ¶0038; Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶0046-0053). Examiner notes that the method 300 of Conner leads the user to the real target device by providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure (i.e., ¶0029 "visual data is generally presented in the visual field using a translucent overlay of graphical elements, including without limitation…location information, maps and other indications of travel directions and position movement within a visual field"), and that the maintenance system automatically scans the visual field and recognizes the passive tags (i.e., captures the identification code of the real target device) when the user enters the area of the target device after having been guided there by the system. Thus, Conner's system/method uses an identification capture device to capture the identification code of the real target device, wherein the identification code is attached to the real target device, by (i.e., by means of, as a result of) providing navigation information within the virtual representation of the enclosure from a location of the mobile device to the location information of the real target device.
Conner does not disclose: register, or direct registration of, the real target device at least in part by linking, or direct linkage of, the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure; and commission the real target device, the commissioning comprising associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address.
However, Steele discloses: register, or direct registration of, the real target device at least in part by linking, or direct linkage of, the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure (Figs. 4, 10; ¶0083, step 430; see also ¶0077); and commission the real target device, the commissioning comprising associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address (Figs. 1 and 4, step 440; ¶¶0037-0039, ¶¶0084-0087, and ¶0121; the installed components are configured for communication via the network, including associating installed components to be controlled by other devices/components in the network. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this communication via the network necessarily includes associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address).
Conner and Steele are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: (i) electric systems controlled by a computer; (ii) program-control systems: using digital processors, computer-assisted repair and maintenance of system components, helmet- or head-mounted display, and/or barcode(s); used for picking up, measuring, testing, and/or placing articles or objects; and/or for domestic, home control, automation, and/or smart house applications; and/or (iii) input arrangements and/or combined input-output arrangements for interaction between user and computer based on graphical user interfaces. Both disclosures are related to performing maintenance and/or installing components in a building/facility. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Conner to incorporate the teachings of Steele to include: register, or direct registration of, the real target device at least in part by linking, or direct linkage of, the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure; and commission the real target device, the commissioning comprising associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address. Doing so would "enable efficient and flexible setup and configuration of a building automation system to be installed and deployed during construction of the building" (Steele, ¶0004).
As to claim 24, Conner in view of Steele discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one controller is further configured to update, or direct update of, the virtual representation of the enclosure according to the registering of the real target device (Steele, Figs. 4, 10; and ¶0083, step 430; see also ¶0077).
As to claim 25, Conner in view of Steele discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein: the identification capture device is mobile (Conner, Fig. 1 and ¶0016, the maintenance assistance system 100 is implemented in a portable computing device), and the at least one controller is configured to direct the identification capture device to capture the identification code optically and/or electronically (Steele, Figs. 4, 10; and ¶0083, step 430), wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the identification capture device (Conner, Figs. 1-2 and ¶17, visual field analysis module 108).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner in view of Steele, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,842,429 to Tsai et al. (“Tsai”).
As to claim 5, Conner in view of Steele discloses method of claim 4, wherein: the mobile device is transported by a traveler within the enclosure (Conner, Figs. 1-2, mobile computing device 202 is carried by the worker).
Conner in view of Steele does not disclose: a zoomed view in the virtual representation is presented on a display of the mobile device in real time to depict a virtual representation of the real target device based at least in part on a present location of the traveler.
However, Tsai discloses: a zoomed view in the virtual representation is presented on a display of the mobile device in real time to depict a virtual representation of the real target device based at least in part on a present location of the traveler (Tsai, Figs. 6A-H and Col. 11: lines 50-67).
Conner, Steele, and Tsai are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: (i) electric systems controlled by a computer; (ii) program-control systems: using digital processors, computer-assisted repair and maintenance of system components, helmet- or head-mounted display, and/or barcode(s); used for picking up, measuring, testing, and/or placing articles or objects; and/or for domestic, home control, automation, and/or smart house applications; and/or (iii) input arrangements and/or combined input-output arrangements for interaction between user and computer based on graphical user interfaces. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Conner in view of Steele to incorporate the teachings of Tsai to include: a zoomed view in the virtual representation is presented on a display of the mobile device in real time to depict a virtual representation of the real target device based at least in part on a present location of the traveler. Doing so would allow for "for navigating three-dimensional environments and viewing three-dimensional objects on an electronic device display based on deterministic movement of the electronic device" (Tsai, Col. 2: lines 11-14), which is advantageous because "requiring a user to provide particular inputs using an input mechanism, however, may not be particularly intuitive and may be burdensome for the user" (Tsai, Col. 4: lines 3-5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner in view of Steele and Tsai, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0191448 to High et al. (“High”).
As to claim 7, Conner in view of Steele and Tsai discloses the method of claim 5.
Conner in view of Steele and Tsai does not disclose: wherein the traveler is a robot having image recognition capabilities.
However, High discloses: wherein the traveler is a robot having image recognition capabilities (Figs. 1-2B, ¶0043, and ¶0053).
Conner, Steele, Tsai, and High are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: (i) electric systems controlled by a computer; (ii) program-control systems: using digital processors, computer-assisted repair and maintenance of system components, helmet- or head-mounted display, and/or barcode(s); used for picking up, measuring, testing, and/or placing articles or objects; and/or for domestic, home control, automation, and/or smart house applications; and/or (iii) input arrangements and/or combined input-output arrangements for interaction between user and computer based on graphical user interfaces. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Conner in view of Steele and Tsai to incorporate the teachings of High to include: wherein the traveler is a robot having image recognition capabilities. Doing so would allow for "motorized transport units to travel through… [a] facility while limiting congestion, in reduced time, while limiting potential conflicts and/or contact with customer, and other such advantage by providing alternate travel routes that are typically not available to at least customers" (High, ¶0180).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner in view of Steele, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0229488 to Averitt.
As to claim 18, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 1.
Conner in view of Steele does not disclose: transmitting the captured identification code to at least one database for storing and/or operatively coupled to the virtual representation of the enclosure.
However, Averitt discloses: transmitting the captured identification code to at least one database for storing and/or operatively coupled to the virtual representation of the enclosure (Figs. 1-3 and ¶0018).
Conner, Steele, and Averitt are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: (i) electric systems controlled by a computer; (ii) program-control systems: using digital processors, computer-assisted repair and maintenance of system components, helmet- or head-mounted display, and/or barcode(s); used for picking up, measuring, testing, and/or placing articles or objects; and/or for domestic, home control, automation, and/or smart house applications; and/or (iii) input arrangements and/or combined input-output arrangements for interaction between user and computer based on graphical user interfaces. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Conner in view of Steele to incorporate the teachings of Averitt to include: transmitting the captured identification code to at least one database for storing and/or operatively coupled to the virtual representation of the enclosure. Doing so would "[enable] an installer to record device data and device location within a building for installed wireless smart devices. Thus, a facilities manager has a map of the locations of the devices for adjusting the operation of the lighting system and other systems from a remote location" (Averitt, ¶0030).
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner in view of Steele, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0103584 to Vats.
As to claim 30, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a digital twin of a real facility at least in part by using a virtual architectural model of the real facility (Steele, Figs. 4-9 and ¶0076-79); populating at least one device of the real facility in the digital twin at a virtual location that corresponds to its real location in the real facility (Steele, Figs. 8-9 and ¶0080-83), wherein the at least one device is controllable (Steele, Figs. 8-9 and ¶0080-83; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the components/devices (i.e., components of automation system 100 in Fig. 1, e.g. desk lamp, breaker box, generator, lighting, etc.) are controllable).
Conner in view of Steele does not disclose: simulating, or directing simulation of, an effect of at least one environmental attribute on the real facility.
However, Vats discloses: simulating, or directing simulation of, an effect of at least one environmental attribute on the real facility (Figs 5A-C, ¶0075, and ¶0114).
Conner, Steele, and Vats are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: (i) electric systems controlled by a computer; (ii) program-control systems: using digital processors, computer-assisted repair and maintenance of system components, helmet- or head-mounted display, and/or barcode(s); used for picking up, measuring, testing, and/or placing articles or objects; and/or for domestic, home control, automation, and/or smart house applications; and/or (iii) input arrangements and/or combined input-output arrangements for interaction between user and computer based on graphical user interfaces. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Conner in view of Steele to incorporate the teachings of Vats to include: simulating, or directing simulation of, an effect of at least one environmental attribute on the real facility. Doing so would "provide an easy to use solution for carrying out real-time customization of objects using a realistic 3D model of the real object" (Vats, ¶0004), which would be advantageous because "there exists a difficulty for users to know about variations or customization options available with a manufacturer for a particular version of real object such as a model of car and a lot of time and effort is required to gain such information. Further, even if users become aware of customization possibilities for a product, it becomes challenging to visualize and know, how the customization will look like, before making any buying decision or before modifying an existing product" (Vats, ¶0002).
As to claim 31, Conner in view of Steel and further in view of Vats discloses the method of Claim 30, wherein the environmental attribute comprises lighting, radiation, temperature, gas velocity, gas flow, gas content, gas concentration, gas pressure, sound, volatile organic compounds, or particulate matter (Vats, Figs 5A-C, ¶0075, and ¶0114).
References Cited
Averitt, Scott M. (2015). System and method for commissioning wireless building system devices (US 2015/0229488 A1). Filed 2014-02-13.
Conner, Kevin J. et al. (2015). Apparatus and method for providing augmented reality for maintenance applications (US 2015/0325047 A1). Filed 2014-05-06.
High, Donald R. et al. (2024). Systems, devices and methods for determining item availability in a shopping space (US 2024/0191448 A1). Filed 2024-02-15.
Steele, Scott A. et al. (2015). Systems, devices, methods and graphical user interface for configuring a building automation system (US 2015/0198938 A1). Filed 2014-01-15.
Tsai, Richard et al. (2017). Generating a three-dimensional model using a portable electronic device recording (US 9,842,429 B2). Filed 2014-01-06.
Vats, Nitin (2017). Real-time customization of a 3d model representing a real product (US 2017/0103584 A1). Filed 2015-03-16.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Ashdown, Ian et al. (2017). System and method for real time dynamic lighting simulation (US 20170345208 A1). Filed 2017-08-02.
Billi, Sharon M. et al. (2016). Layered map presentation for industrial data (US 20160292895 A1). Filed 2015-03-31.
Bear, Eric Justin Gould et al. (2020). Head-mounted display for navigating virtual and augmented reality (US 20200197825 A1). Filed 2020-02-18.
Brandsma, Ewout et al. (2013). Localization method, computer program product and localization device (US 20130141223 A1). Filed 2012-12-03.
Clements, Sigmund Lindsay (2021). Phone map used to find and operate multiuser devices (US 10924603 B1). Filed 2019-01-02.
Clements, Sigmund Lindsay (2022). Map on a phone used to find and operate public multi-user devices (US 11537352 B1). Filed 2021-02-15.
Croteau, Keith G. et al. (2020). Interactive image display and selection system (US 20200012677 A1). Filed 2019-09-17.
Emerson, David R. (2015). Mini-automation controller (US 20150268649 A1). Filed 2015-03-11.
Funes, Lucas Marcelo (2019). Systems and methods for smart spaces (US 20190079476 A1). Filed 2018-11-13.
Hong, Kichu et al. (2017). Control device and control method for flying bot (US 20170329325 A1). Filed 2014-11-14.
High, Donald R. et al. (2021). Shopping facility assistance systems, devices and methods (US 11046562 B2). Filed 2019-03-21.
High, Donald R. et al. (2024). Shopping facility assistance systems, devices and methods (US 12084824 B2). Filed 2023-05-08.
Reiss, W. (2011). Device commissioning and replacement (US 20110307589). Filed 2010-06-11.
Tinnakornsrisuphap, Peerapol et al. (2015). Sensor based configuration and control of network devices (US 20150327304 A1). Filed 2015-07-23.
Tiwari, Ankit et al. (2018). Floor plan coverage based auto pairing and parameter setting (US 20180120793 A1). Filed 2016-03-23.
Xing, Zhou Tian et al. (2017). Wearable augmented reality eyeglass communication device including mobile phone and mobile computing via virtual touch screen gesture control and neuron command (US 20170103440 A1). Filed 2016-12-26.
Yoon, Seokhyun (2015). Apparatus and method for controlling internet of things devices (US 20150347114 A1). Filed 2015-05-28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights