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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, 21, 25, and 30 have been appropriately amended to correct various minor informalities. The objections to claims 1, 17, 21, 25, and 30 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks made in an amendment filed 2025-12-23 (“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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
In claim 21, line 1: “An apparatus for registering…”
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such structure is described in the Specification:
¶0018, “an apparatus for registering one or more real target devices, the apparatus comprising at least one controller having circuitry…”;
¶0029, “apparatuses (e.g., controllers)”; and
¶0031, “an apparatus comprises at least one controller that is programmed to direct a mechanism used to implement (e.g., effectuate) any of the method disclosed herein, which at least one controller is configured to operatively couple to the mechanism”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/ limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 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 a method comprising: identifying a location information of a real target device (Fig. 3 and ¶0041, step 302) at least in part by using a mobile device (Fig. 1 and ¶0016, the maintenance assistance system 100 is implemented in a portable computing device) to select a virtual target device…and/or using geographic information locating the real target device (Fig. 3 and ¶0041, step 302).
Conner does not disclose: 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; 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; registering the real target device at least in part by linking the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure; commissioning the real target device, the commissioning comprising associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address.
However, Steele discloses: 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 (Figs. 4-9 and ¶0080, step 420); 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 (Figs. 4, 10; ¶0083, step 430; see also ¶0077); registering the real target device at least in part by linking the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure (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 (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. 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: 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; 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; registering the real target device at least in part by linking the identification code, the location information, and the virtual representation of the enclosure; 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 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 (Fig. 1 and ¶0016, maintenance assistance system 100), the apparatus comprising at least one controller having circuitry (Fig. 1 and ¶0016-19, processor architecture 102), wherein the at least one controller is configured to: operatively couple to an identification capture device (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); receive, or direct receipt of, location information of a real target device at least in part by…geographic information locating the real target device (Fig. 3 and ¶0041, step 302).
Conner does not disclose: …operatively couple to a virtual representation of an enclosure in which the one or more real target devices are disposed; 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 the 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; 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; or 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; commission the real target device, the commissioning comprising associating the identification code of the real target device with a network address.
However, Steele discloses: …operatively couple to a virtual representation of an enclosure in which the one or more real target devices are disposed (Figs. 7-9; see also ¶0077); 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 the 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 (Figs. 4-9 and ¶0080, step 420); 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 (Figs. 4, 10; ¶0083, step 430; see also ¶0077); 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); 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. 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: operatively couple to a virtual representation of an enclosure in which the one or more real target devices are disposed; 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 the 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; 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; or 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; 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).
Claims 4 and 5 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 No. 9,842,429 to Tsai et al. (“Tsai”).
As to claim 4, Conner in view of Steele discloses the method of claim 3.
Conner in view of Steele does not disclose: further comprising navigating within the virtual representation of the enclosure according to movement of the mobile device in the enclosure.
However, Tsai discloses: further comprising navigating within the virtual representation of the enclosure according to movement of the mobile device in the enclosure (Figs. 3A-B and Col. 10: lines 4-21).
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: further comprising navigating within the virtual representation of the enclosure according to movement of the mobile device in the enclosure. 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).
As to claim 5, Conner in view of Steele and further in view of Tsai discloses the 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), and 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).
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, Wanda (2011). Device commissioning and replacement (US 20110307589 A1). 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, applicant may 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