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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 3/26/2026. Claims 21-23, 26-32, 35-40 are presented for examination. Independent claims 21, 30, 39 were amended. Claims 1-20, 24, 25, 33, 34 were cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of the Applicant’s remarks, filed 3/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-23, 26-32, 35-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wagatsuma (U.S. Patent Application 20160150104).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-23, 26-32, 35-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-23, 26-32, 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “a physical object” in line 3. The limitation was already recited in line 2. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 3 is the same or different from the limitation in line 2.
Claims 22, 23, 26-29 depend on at least claim 21. Therefore, the claims are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 21.
Claim 30 recites similar limitations as claim 21. Therefore, claim 30 requires similar corrections as claim 21.
Claims 31, 32, 35-38, depend on at least claim 30. Therefore, the claims are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 30.
Claim 39 recites similar limitations as claim 21. Therefore, claim 39 requires similar corrections as claim 21.
Claim 40 depends on at least claim 39. Therefore, the claim is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 39.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26-32, 35-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pretlove et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20060241792) in view of Baillot (U.S. Patent Application 20070273610) and further in view of Wagatsuma (U.S. Patent Application 20160150104).
In regards to claim 21, Pretlove teaches a method [Fig. 3; e.g. method, 0047] for providing content associated with a condition of a physical object [Fig. 4; e.g. on-line readings of the object are displayed to the operator, 0072, also see 0017], the method comprising:
obtaining one or more images of a physical object [Fig. 2; e.g. capturing images of the real object, 0062] captured by a camera [Fig. 2; e.g. camera, 0062] disposed on a head mounted device [Fig. 2; e.g. head-mounted display, 0055];
identifying, based at least in part on the one or more images, the physical object [e.g. identify the specific device, 0048], wherein the physical object is a machine [e.g. equipment, 0068];
obtaining the content associated with the condition of the machine [e.g. generating virtual information corresponding to the on-line readings of the object, 0017, 0081]; and
providing the content associated with the condition of the machine via the head mounted device [Fig. 4; e.g. on-line readings of the object are displayed to the operator via the head mounted display, 0072, also see 0017, 0043].
Pretlove does not explicitly teach
wherein at least one of the one or more images of the physical object includes a visual indicator on the physical object;
identifying, by analyzing the at least one of the one or more images captured by the camera, a visual state of the visual indicator on the machine;
determining an operational state of the machine based on the identified visual state of the visual indicator on the machine;
identifying, based at least in part on the one or more images and the determined operational state of the machine, the condition of the machine.
However, Baillot teaches
identifying, based at least in part on the one or more images and the determined operational state of the machine, the condition of the machine [e.g. determining if the machine needs to be repaired or maintained based on the image of the machine and the machine’s temperature by a sensor in the machine, 0072, also see 0034-0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pretlove’s method with the features of
identifying, based at least in part on the one or more images and the determined operational state of the machine, the condition of the machine
in the same conventional manner as taught by Baillot because Baillot provides a method for the repair person to display additional useful information about the object [0072].
Pretlove as modified by Baillot does not explicitly teach
wherein at least one of the one or more images of the physical object includes a visual indicator on the physical object;
identifying, by analyzing the at least one of the one or more images captured by the camera, a visual state of the visual indicator on the machine;
determining an operational state of the machine based on the identified visual state of the visual indicator on the machine.
However, Wagatsuma teaches
wherein at least one of the one or more images of the physical object includes a visual indicator on the physical object [Fig. 1; e.g. the image shot of the image forming apparatus includes a light emitting unit on the image forming apparatus, 0048];
identifying, by analyzing the at least one of the one or more images captured by the camera, a visual state of the visual indicator on the machine [e.g. recognizing the blinking pattern of the light emitting unit by analyzing the image shot, 0048];
determining an operational state of the machine based on the identified visual state of the visual indicator on the machine [e.g. determining that the image forming apparatus is in an abnormal status based on the recognized blinking pattern of the light emitting unit on the image forming apparatus, 0097-0098].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Pretlove’s method and the teachings of Baillot with the features of
wherein at least one of the one or more images of the physical object includes a visual indicator on the physical object;
identifying, by analyzing the at least one of the one or more images captured by the camera, a visual state of the visual indicator on the machine;
determining an operational state of the machine based on the identified visual state of the visual indicator on the machine
in the same conventional manner as taught by Wagatsuma because object recognition algorithms such as recognizing the visual state of the visual indicator on the machine is well known and commonly used in the art of object recognition systems.
In regards to claim 22, Pretlove teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the content is obtained from a database [Fig. 3; e.g. storage unit, 0048-0049, 0077] that stores the content in relation to the condition of the machine [e.g. the augmented reality representation including the virtual information is stored in advance and loaded from the storage unit, 0059, 0077].
In regards to claim 23, Pretlove teaches the method of claim 22, wherein identifying the physical object [see rejection of claim 21 above] comprises determining an identifier [e.g. known ID, 0048] associated with the physical object, and the database stores the content in relation to both the identifier and the condition of the machine [e.g. The ID is also matched to one or more corresponding computer generated information in the form of virtual graphics views stored on the storage means. The computer generated information includes the on-line readings of the object, 0048, 0081].
In regards to claim 26, Pretlove teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising:
identifying a state of the head mounted device [e.g. determining the point of view of the user while wearing the head mounted display, 0043, 0082, 0084] based, at least in part, on a position and an orientation of the head mounted device [e.g. position and pose of the camera and the display, 0067, 0076] relative to the physical object [e.g. an absolute position is then mapped in terms of coordinates against stored positions of equipment, 0048], wherein the content is further associated with the state of the head mounted device [e.g. When the user moves around or moves his head, the virtual graphics are generated and/or adjusted so as to appear to be positioned at the same location at the specific equipment, device, instrument or system, although the point view of the combined object and graphics may have changed, 0084].
In regards to claim 27, Pretlove does not explicitly teach the method of claim 21, wherein:
identifying the condition of the machine [see rejection of claim 21 above] is further based on identifying feature points [e.g. identifying markers, 0065] of the machine.
Pretlove does not explicitly teach using the feature points to map a movement of the machine.
However, Baillot teaches using the feature points to map a movement of the machine [e.g. the tracking system uses markers to track the movement of the object, 0032-0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pretlove’s method with the features of using the feature points to map a movement of the machine in the same conventional manner as taught by Baillot because Baillot provides a method for the repair person to display additional useful information about the object [0072].
In regards to claim 28, Pretlove teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the content is virtual content provided on a display of the head mounted device [e.g. the virtual information corresponding to the on-line readings of the object are displayed on the head mounted display, 0017, 0081].
In regards to claim 29, Pretlove teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the virtual content comprises a depiction of at least a portion of the machine [e.g. the computer-generated graphics are virtually attached to the real world scene including the real world image of the equipment, 0075, 0081].
In regards to claim 30, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 21, but in the form of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 21. Furthermore, Pretlove teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media [e.g. computer readable medium, 0090] storing instructions [e.g. one or more computer programs, 0089-0090] that, when executed by one or more processors [e.g. one or more microprocessors, 0089-0090], cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 21. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 21 is applied.
In regards to claim 31, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 22. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 22 is applied.
In regards to claim 32, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 23. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 23 is applied.
In regards to claim 35, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 26. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 26 is applied.
In regards to claim 36, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 27. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 27 is applied.
In regards to claim 37, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 28. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 28 is applied.
In regards to claim 38, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 29. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 29 is applied.
In regards to claim 39, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 21, but in the form of a head mounted device comprising: a camera; an output device; one or more processors configured to cause the head mounted device to perform the method of claim 21. Furthermore, Pretlove teaches a head mounted device [Fig. 2; e.g. head-mounted display, 0055] comprising: a camera [Fig. 2; e.g. camera, 0062]; an output device [e.g. head mounted display, 0017, 0081]; one or more processors [e.g. one or more microprocessors, 0089-0090] configured to cause the head mounted device to perform the method of claim 21. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 21 is applied.
In regards to claim 40, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 22. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 22 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612