DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on March 12, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with no claims canceled and claims 1, 2, and 5 currently amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmirler [US 20180131907 A1].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Schmirler discloses:
A method for industrial virtual training, the method comprising:
providing, on a device, a simulation that includes a virtual environment (Schmirler, Fig 2, “Augmented or Virtual Reality Presentations 204”);
in response to user selection on a selection device:
selecting a mode of operation for the virtual environment, wherein the mode of operation comprises one of a single-user training mode and a multi-user training mode (Schmirler, [0157], “In the case of collaborative action in which multiple users are addressing a detected issue, rendering component 308 can deliver workflow presentation data 1602 to each recipient's wearable appliance 206 to coordinate activity between the recipients.”);
selecting an industrial plant (Schmirler, [0073], “One or more plant models 524 stored on the presentation system 302 can define three-dimensional views of areas within an industrial facility (e.g., production lines or work areas)…”);
identifying industrial equipment in the virtual environment (Schmirler, [0098], “Selection of an asset information icon 810 can cause rendering component 308 to render an information window on or near the asset corresponding to the icon 810, and populate this information window with information relevant to the asset.”);
rendering a model of the industrial equipment in the virtual environment (Schmirler, [0098], “…on or near the asset corresponding to the icon 810…”); and
providing equipment description (Schmirler, [0098], “…populate this information window with information relevant to the asset.”).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising logging into the simulation that includes the virtual environment in response to user selection on the selection device (Schmirler, [0074], “The virtual and augmented reality presentations can also be customized in accordance with a defined role of the wearer of appliance 206, as specified in user profiles 522 defined for each user of the system.”).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the virtual environment includes
a model of a kiosk with which a user can interact to select the mode of operation and the industrial plant for industrial training of the industrial equipment using the selection device (Schmirler, [0115], “…while the user's line of sight is directed to the industrial controller, a control cabinet in which the controller resides, or a machine being controlled by the industrial controller 1204, the user can perform a gesture or speak a verbal command recognizable by the wearable appliance 206 indicating that the user has selected the industrial controller 1204 (or its associated machine) as a target for a control instruction.”).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the industrial equipment is selected from a list of a number of industrial equipment identified on the model of the kiosk in response to the user selection on the selection device (Schmirler, [0044], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example industrial control environment 100. In this example, a number of industrial controllers 118 are deployed throughout an industrial plant environment to monitor and control respective industrial systems or processes relating to product manufacture, machining, motion control, batch processing, material handling, or other such industrial functions. Industrial controllers 118 typically execute respective control programs to facilitate monitoring and control of industrial devices 120 making up the controlled industrial systems. One or more industrial controllers 118 may also comprise a soft controller executed on a personal computer or other hardware platform, or a hybrid device that combines controller functionality with other functions (e.g., visualization).”).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein the equipment description in the virtual environment is
one of a plurality of equipment descriptions provided on the model of the kiosk or
provided as part of a detail graphical element in the virtual environment in proximity to the model of the industrial equipment (Schmirler, [0050], “This internal view can include superimposed operational and status data placed on or near representations of the relevant industrial devices or control panels.”).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising
providing a number of graphical interactive elements in the virtual environment for interaction using the selection device to provide a different learning style for understanding how the industrial equipment behaves, operates, functions, and/or fits into a process flow (Schmirler, [0150], “…rendering component 308 may narrow the list of suitable recipients further based on current user context information, including but not limited to each potential recipient's current availability or location relative to the source of the detected issue (as determined based on the location and orientation data 606 received from the users' wearable appliances 206), skills or training on a particular device or piece of equipment to which the notification relates (as determined based on the user profiles 522), etc.”).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein the number of graphical interactive elements includes one of:
a cut-away graphical element for interaction using the selection device to provide an internal view into the model of the industrial equipment (Schmirler, [0088], “Industrial assets rendered in the presentation, including tanks 818, conveyor 812, vats 814, and machines 816 are rendered by the rendering component 308 in accordance with rendering instructions defined by one or more of the plant models 524.”); and
a scale in size graphical element for interaction using the selection device to change a size of the model of the industrial equipment from a given size to a different size (Schmirler, [0092], “In general, the external view generated by VR/AR presentation system 302 renders the industrial area as a virtual scale model of the area, and allows the user to move around and interact with the scaled version of the area.”).
Furthermore, as disclosed in [0100] of Schmirler in conjunction with the citations in the corresponding section above, the system may render a scaled-down version (as seen in Figs. 8-10) and “allows the user to switch to a full-scale rendering” (as seen in Fig. 11). This discloses an interactive scaling mechanism as claimed above.
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein the number of graphical interactive elements includes one of:
a comparison graphical element for interaction using the selection device to provide a picture or an image of the industrial equipment in proximity to the model of the industrial equipment (Schmirler, [0152], “These graphical guides may include, for example, diagrams illustrating the action to be performed, photographic or video data that demonstrates how a given step is to be performed, device documentation, or other such guides.”); and
an audio graphical element for interaction using the selection device to provide a narration of the equipment description for the industrial equipment (Schmirler, [0097], “This allows the remote user to provide verbal instructions to selected personnel on the plant floor (e.g., guidance in connection with addressing an operational or maintenance issue), or to share visual information between the users.” and Schmirler, [0191], (emphasis added), “The augmented reality presentation can comprise, for example, graphical indicators overlaid on the user's field of view indicating locations, machines, devices, or components to which the user's focus should be directed in order to complete the current step of the workflow, alphanumeric or vocal instructions explaining the current step, video presentations demonstrating an action to be performed by the user, or other such presentations.”).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein number of graphical interactive elements includes
a process view graphical element for interaction using the selection device to update the virtual environment with a process view flow for visualizing the industrial equipment in a corresponding plant process flow (Schmirler, Fig 16, Workflow Presentation, 1602, and Schmirler, [0153], “In general, workflow presentations inform the user of the proper sequence of operations to be performed in order to best address the detected condition. In some embodiments, while the detected condition is being addressed by a recipient of the workflow presentation, monitoring component 316 can continuously compare actual operator actions with the optimal workflow represented by the workflow data, and provide feedback to the user if the user's actions deviate from the optimal workflow.”).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein the virtual environment is generated based on virtual environment data provided by a rendering system (Schmirler, Fig 3, Rendering Component 308).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 6, further comprising:
providing instructions and content, using a rendering controller of the rendering system, from a content repository for simulating the virtual environment (Schmirler, [0053], “The virtual or augmented reality presentations can include, but are not limited to, revision information, topology information, controls, firmware, connections, problems, alarms, training, human machine interface, location of controller/equipment, maps, manuals, instructions, line diagrams, ladder programs, locations, avatars, filtered views, cameras, x-ray views, removable views, troubleshooting, how-to's, error proofing, safety robots, customer information, equipment information, filters, line of sight filters, knowledge sharing portals, work flows, view/grab HMI's, line of sight (including distant line of sight), super power line of sight, authentication, privilege control, and asset tracking.”); and
running the instructions and the content, using a gaming engine, to simulate the virtual environment, wherein the rendering controller is configured to receive selection requests from the selection device and an update virtual environment based on the selection requests (Schmirler, [0092], “As the user moves around, toward, or away from the virtual scaled industrial area, the wearable appliance 206 streams updated location and orientation data 606 to the presentation system 302, which updates the presentation data 604 substantially continuously to simulate the effect of walking around a scale model of the production area.”).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 11, further comprising
causing an electronic display to provide the virtual environment in one of a first-person view (Schmirler teaches a trainee’s view.) and a spectator view, wherein the virtual environment includes a virtual camera to provide one of the first-person view and the spectator view (Schmirler, [0097], “Some embodiments of VR/AR presentation system 302 can also allow a remote viewer of the VR/AR presentation to open an audio or audio-video channel to a wearable appliance 206 associated with a user corresponding to a selected one of the human icons 808.”).
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving a package build that includes data representative of the virtual environment (Schmirler, Claim 1, “…a memory that stores executable components…” and Schmirler, [0058], “Aspects of the systems, apparatuses, or processes explained in this disclosure can constitute machine-executable components embodied within machine(s), e.g., embodied in one or more computer-readable mediums (or media) associated with one or more machines. Such components, when executed by one or more machines, e.g., computer(s), computing device(s), automation device(s), virtual machine(s), etc., can cause the machine(s) to perform the operations described.”); and
causing the package build to be executed on the device to simulate the virtual environment (Schmirler, Claim 1, “…a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components…”).
Regarding claim 17 (Original), Schmirler discloses:
The system of claim 16, wherein the mobile device is a virtual reality (VR) headset (Schmirler, [0013], “FIG. 6A is a block diagram illustrating components and data flows of a VR/AR presentation system.”).
Regarding claims 14-16 and 18-20 (Original), the claims share similar limitations to claims 1-3, 6, and 10-13. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 10-13 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of 16 of the Remarks, filed March 12, 2026, with respect to the claim objection of claim 5 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 1, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 8 of 16, para 2, the Applicant argues:
“Schmirler does not disclose selecting a mode of operation for the virtual environment. The cited passage describes displaying information about a machine's current operating mode-that is, whether the physical industrial equipment is running in automatic, manual, or semi-manual mode. This is fundamentally different from selecting how the virtual training environment itself operates.”
The Examiner respectfully submits the cited passage relates to selecting a mode as initially claimed under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Please see the cited portion as it relates to the amended claims in the corresponding section above. The cited portion above in the corresponding section discloses a multi-user mode where collaborative action may take place. A multi-user mode of operation may be selected for collaborative action; however, when collaborative action isn’t desired or appropriate, a single-user mode of operation is engaged.
Regarding claim 1, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 8 of 16, para 4, the Applicant argues:
“Schmirler's system monitors and visualizes industrial operations. The claimed invention provides a training simulation where users select between single-user and multi-user training modes. Schmirler does not disclose this limitation.”
The Examiner respectfully submits the cited portion above in the corresponding section discloses a multi-user mode where collaborative action may take place. A multi-user mode may be selected for collaborative action; however, when collaborative action isn’t desired or appropriate, a single-user mode is engaged.
Regarding claim 1, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 9 of 16, para 1, the Applicant argues:
“While Schmirler discloses rendering equipment models and displaying information about them, Schmirler's system serves a fundamentally different purpose. Schmirler's system is designed for operational monitoring and control of actual industrial equipment. Users select equipment to view real-time operational data and send control instructions to physical devices. In contrast, the claimed invention provides a training simulation.”
The Examiner respectfully submits Schmirler does disclose a device capable of being used for training. In [0191], Schmirler discloses:
“The augmented reality presentation can comprise, for example, graphical indicators overlaid on the user's field of view indicating locations, machines, devices, or components to which the user's focus should be directed in order to complete the current step of the workflow, alphanumeric or vocal instructions explaining the current step, video presentations demonstrating an action to be performed by the user, or other such presentations.”
The disclosure cited above demonstrates the prior art’s capability of demonstrating information to a user for the purposes of the user performing the action (i.e., training).
However, even in the scenario that Schmirler did not disclose a device capable of training, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 9 of 16, para 3, the Applicant argues:
“Schmirler does not disclose a training-focused system with the claimed interactive learning elements.”
The Examiner respectfully submits the citation from [0191] of Schmirler directly above. The various forms of instruction and presentation are interactive learning elements.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 9 of 16, para 5, the Applicant argues:
“Schmirler does not disclose a kiosk interface. The cited passage describes selecting industrial equipment directly in the virtual environment to send control instructions to actual physical equipment. This is fundamentally different from the claimed kiosk, which serves as a centralized training interface.”
The Examiner respectfully submits Schmirler discloses a selection interface to allow a user to select various training components. The choice to display information via a kiosk/booth-style menu as compared to a menu designed to depict a realistic factory floor plan does not patentably distinguish a claimed invention from a prior art reference. The differences merely amount to aesthetic design changes (See MPEP 2144.04, Section I) and rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, C). The instant application displays menu items for selecting training components within a kiosk/booth-style menu and Schmirler displays menu items for selecting training components within a virtualized floor plan of a factory.
Regarding claim 6, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 11 of 16, para 1, the Applicant argues:
“[Schmirler] does not describe graphical interactive elements for learning. The cited passage contains no disclosure of user interface elements, learning styles, or training functionality.”
The Examiner respectfully submits the various remarks above. Additionally, please see the corresponding section above for further citations.
Regarding claim 7, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 11 of 16, para 7, the Applicant argues:
“Schmirler describes viewing the entire facility as a scaled-down model, similar to viewing an architectural model. This is not a user-controlled scaling feature that allows changing the size of individual equipment models. The cited passage describes a fixed viewing mode, not an interactive graphical element for changing equipment size.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that, as disclosed in [0100] of Schmirler in conjunction with the citations in the corresponding section above, the system may render a scaled-down version (as seen in Figs. 8-10) and “allows the user to switch to a full-scale rendering” (as seen in Fig. 11). This discloses an interactive scaling mechanism as claimed in claim 7 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 8, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 12 of 16, para 6, the Applicant argues:
“Schmirler describes user-to-user communication, not comparison views or automated narration. The cited passage relates to establishing communication channels between personnel, not displaying real-world photos next to virtual models or providing audio narration of equipment descriptions for training purposes.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that Schmirler discloses such features in [0191] of the reference as cited in the remarks regarding claim 1 of the instant application. For ease of the reference, [0191] is provided here (emphasis added):
“The augmented reality presentation can comprise, for example, graphical indicators overlaid on the user's field of view indicating locations, machines, devices, or components to which the user's focus should be directed in order to complete the current step of the workflow, alphanumeric or vocal instructions explaining the current step, video presentations demonstrating an action to be performed by the user, or other such presentations.”
Furthermore, Schmirler discloses the following in [0152]:
“These graphical guides may include, for example, diagrams illustrating the action to be performed, photographic or video data that demonstrates how a given step is to be performed, device documentation, or other such guides.”
These citations display where Schmirler discloses the usage of real-world photos and audio narration of equipment descriptions.
Regarding claim 9, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 13 of 16, para 7, the Applicant argues:
“Schmirler's maintenance workflow diagrams are fundamentally different from the claimed production process flow views. Schmirler does not disclose this limitation.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that Fig. 16 depicts Workflow Presentation, 1602, which is discussed, amongst other areas, in [0153] of Schmirler. The paragraph recites:
“In general, workflow presentations inform the user of the proper sequence of operations to be performed in order to best address the detected condition. In some embodiments, while the detected condition is being addressed by a recipient of the workflow presentation, monitoring component 316 can continuously compare actual operator actions with the optimal workflow represented by the workflow data, and provide feedback to the user if the user's actions deviate from the optimal workflow.”
This recitation discloses a view of the proper workflow/process alongside the interaction of the user, which provides the user with a visualization of the industrial equipment in a corresponding plant process flow.
Regarding claim 11, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 14 of 16, para 3, the Applicant argues:
“Schmirler describes a rendering component for operational monitoring but does not disclose using a gaming engine. This is a structural difference in system architecture.”
The Examiner respectfully submits and agrees that Schmirler does not explicitly disclose a gaming engine for the rendering component. However, the usage of a third-party tool is not sufficient for the purposes of patentability. Usage of a gaming engine over the rendering component would be a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP 2143, Section I, B).
However, the instant application does not provide sufficient disclosure to distinguish the gaming engine from the rendering component. Specifically, the disclosure states “the gaming engine 128 can be a commercially available gaming engine, such as Unreal Engine 4®, Unreal Engine 5®, or Unity Engine®” (Instant Application, [0025]). In this recitation, the commercially available gaming engines listed are examples, as indicated by the usage of “such as”, and the commercially available gaming engines listed are not a part of the claimed invention; therefore, their presence is moot.
Furthermore, the instant application states, “the game engine 128 can be configured to run the content and instructions provided by the rendering controller 126” (Instant Application, [0025]), which are functions presented by the rendering component of Schmirler (See citations in the corresponding section above); therefore, the terminology of the gaming engine as compared to the rendering component amount to merely subjective language as the structural and functional applications of the terms are indistinguishable.
Regarding claim 13, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page 15 of 16, para 1, the Applicant argues:
“A package build is a distributable software package that can run independently, similar to a video game executable. Schmirler describes a client-server architecture where the rendering system provides presentations to wearable appliances. Schmirler does not disclose distributing standalone package builds.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that the Instant Application states, “In a further embodiment consistent with the present disclosure, a non-transitory computer-readable medium can include machine-readable instructions representative of a package build that includes a virtual environment” (Instant Application, [0007]). In this recitation, and other references of a package build within the Instant Application, Schmirler teaches a package build via claim 1, as previously cited, and through the following passage in [0058] of Schmirler:
“Aspects of the systems, apparatuses, or processes explained in this disclosure can constitute machine-executable components embodied within machine(s), e.g., embodied in one or more computer-readable mediums (or media) associated with one or more machines. Such components, when executed by one or more machines, e.g., computer(s), computing device(s), automation device(s), virtual machine(s), etc., can cause the machine(s) to perform the operations described.”
As seen in the passage above, the instructions can be executed on various computers, devices, and machines, which are caused to perform the operations by the components. In this embodiment, Schmirler does not disclose a required server.
Regarding claims 14-20, in the Remarks filed March 12, 2026 on page , para, Applicant argues the above arguments remedy the rejections previously made by the Examiner in the Non-Final Rejection filed December 19, 2025. Please see the sections above for further detail.
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights