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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12-30-25 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1-26-26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Gooch et al. (US20170220125).
Re claim 1, Gooch et al. teaches for example in fig. 2, a housing for a manufacturing machine (para. 0005) and/or a part of a production line, the housing comprising: a set of sensors (para. 0006, 0029, and claim 1; wherein the examiner interprets “at least one sensor” to mean one or more, setting a minimum of one with no upper limit and therefore teaches the claimed limitation; furthermore, para. 0035; wherein the examiner interprets “cameras” to teach the claimed limitation) to detect a quality of a product manufactured by the manufacturing machine and/or on the production line (para. 0006, 0029, and claim 1; wherein the examiner interprets “at least one sensor configured to measure at least one parameter of the machinery unit” to teach the claimed limitation; furthermore para. 0035-0036; wherein the examiner interprets “cameras may capture video to allow the user to see different views of the controlled equipment” and “operator at a remote viewing location may visually monitor controlled equipment, while also monitoring operational data” to teach monitoring “quality” of work of the controlled equipment, and therefore teaches the claimed limitation); a transparent element (224; abstract) used at least partially as: a projection surface for a head-up display (abstract) comprising an optics module (para. 0020) and an imaging unit (para. 0016) in addition to the projection surface (para. 0016), a carrier for a transparent interactive input device (para. 0026) including at least one of: a transparent multitouch element, a sensor button, a slider, a wheel, a trackpad, and a touchscreen, and/or a combiner for augmented and/or assisted reality (para. 0019); and a processor (210) programmed to receive, combine, and process data generated by the sensors (para. 0018-0020; 0028-0029) and to operate the projection surface and to control the manufacturing machine (para. 0029) and/or the part of a production line.
Re claim 2, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, further comprising a camera (para. 0026, 0035).
Re claim 8, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, further comprising an at least 25% opaque film (para. 0021).
Re claim 9, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, further comprising a processor (para. 0018).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooch et al. (US20170220125) in view of Fevre et al. (WO2015052419).
Re claim 10, Gooch et al. teaches for example in fig. 2, a system for closed-loop and/or open-loop control of a manufacturing machine (para. 0005, abstract) and/or a part of a production line, the system comprising: a display (abstract) and operating unit having an HUD unit (abstract); a transparent interactive input device (para. 0016, 0019); sensors (para. 0006, 0029, and claim 1; wherein the examiner interprets “at least one sensor” to mean one or more, setting a minimum of one with no upper limit and therefore teaches the claimed limitation; furthermore, para. 0035; wherein the examiner interprets “cameras” to teach the claimed limitation) to detect a quality of the product to be manufactured (para. 0006, 0029, and claim 1; wherein the examiner interprets “at least one sensor configured to measure at least one parameter of the machinery unit” to teach the claimed limitation; furthermore para. 0035-0036; wherein the examiner interprets “cameras may capture video to allow the user to see different views of the controlled equipment” and “operator at a remote viewing location may visually monitor controlled equipment, while also monitoring operational data” to teach monitoring “quality” of work of the controlled equipment, and therefore teaches the claimed limitation); and a processor (para. 0006, 0018; claim 1) programmed to receive, combine, and process the data of the sensors and to operate the display of operating element and to control in an open-loop and closed-loop manner the manufacturing machine and/or the part of a production line (para. 0006, 0018; claim 1).
But, Gooch et al. fails to explicitly teach at least one sensor to activate the HUD unit upon detection of a user in a designated space.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Fevre et al. teaches for example, at least one sensor to activate the HUD unit upon detection of a user in a designated space (p. 6; para. 4-10 of english translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Gooch et al. with Fevre et al. in order to provide .
Re claim 11, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, comprising: a camera (para. 0026, 0035), a light barrier, a microphone, and/or a loudspeaker.
Re claim 13, Fevre et al. further teaches for example the sensors operate to authenticate a user (p. 9, para. 4).
Re claim 14, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, various systems described herein may be embodied in software or code executed by general purpose hardware as discussed above, as an alternative the same may also be embodied in dedicated hardware or a combination of software/general purpose hardware and dedicated hardware (para. 0041).
But, Gooch et al. fails to explicitly teach an AI for creating predictions about the progress of the production of the product to be manufactured.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary executed code, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Gooch et al. in order to provide an interactive, head-up approach, as taught by Gooch et al. (para. 0005).
Re claim 15, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, the sensors detect a status of the manufacturing machine (para. 0006, 0029, and claim 1; wherein the examiner interprets “at least one sensor configured to measure at least one parameter of the machinery unit” to teach the claimed limitation; furthermore para. 0035-0036; wherein the examiner interprets “cameras may capture video to allow the user to see different views of the controlled equipment” and “operator at a remote viewing location may visually monitor controlled equipment, while also monitoring operational data” to teach monitoring “status” of work of the controlled equipment, and therefore teaches the claimed limitation), the part of the production line, and/or a tool.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooch et al. (US20170220125).
Re claim 3, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, teleconferencing (para. 0035).
But, Gooch et al. fails to explicitly teach the housing holds a loudspeaker.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary outputs, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Gooch et al. in order to facilitate teleconferencing, as is well known in the art.
Re claim 4, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, teleconferencing (para. 0035) and varying the inputs (para. 0019).
But, Gooch et al. fails to explicitly teach the housing holds a microphone.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a microphone, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Gooch et al. in order to facilitate teleconferencing, as taught by Gooch et al. (para. 0035).
Re claim 5, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, a camera (para. 0026, 0035) and varying the inputs (para. 0019).
But, Gooch et al. fails to explicitly teach the housing holds a 360° camera.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the camera, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Gooch et al. in order to provide an interactive, head-up approach, as taught by Gooch et al. (para. 0005).
Re claim 6, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, touch-enabled functionality (para. 0016).
But, Gooch et al. fails to explicitly teach the housing holds a haptic film.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the touch-enabled functionality, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Gooch et al. in order to provide feedback to acknowledge input, as is well known in the art.
Re claim 7, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Gooch et al. further teaches for example in fig. 2, laser projections (para. 0016, 0020, 0025).
But, Gooch et al. fails to explicitly teach the housing holds a laser grid.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the laser projection, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Gooch et al. in order to provide an interactive, head-up approach, as taught by Gooch et al. (para. 0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-30-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re applicant’s arguments on p. 5-7, wherein the applicant argues that the prior art does not “detect a quality of a product manufactured by the manufacturing machine and/or on the production line”, have been considered, but are not persuasive.
The instant application explicitly states the following in para. 0034 of PG Pub US20230359026:
All types of known sensors can be used as sensors, analytical sensors for checking the quality of the product to be manufactured, sensors generating light, temperature, pressure, audio and/or video data, for example “sensors” such as camera and/or microphone.
Prior art Gooch et al. (US20170220125) explicitly teaches “at least one sensor” in para. 0006, 0029, and claim 1; wherein the examiner interprets “at least one sensor” to mean one or more sensors, setting a minimum of one with no upper limit and therefore teaches the claimed limitation; furthermore, para. 0035; wherein the examiner interprets “cameras” to teach the claimed limitation) to detect a quality of a product manufactured by the manufacturing machine and/or on the production line (para. 0006, 0029, and claim 1; wherein the examiner interprets “at least one sensor configured to measure at least one parameter of the machinery unit” to teach the claimed limitation; furthermore para. 0035-0036; wherein the examiner interprets “cameras may capture video to allow the user to see different views of the controlled equipment” and “operator at a remote viewing location may visually monitor controlled equipment, while also monitoring operational data” to teach monitoring “quality” of work of the controlled equipment, and therefore teaches the claimed limitation).
Re applicant’s arguments on p. 5-7, wherein the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “a processor programmed to receive, combine, and process data generated by the sensors and to operate the projection surface and to control the manufacturing machine and/or the part of a production line”, have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Prior art Gooch et al. (US20170220125) explicitly teaches a processor (210) programmed to receive, combine, and process data generated by the sensors (para. 0018-0020; 0028-0029) and to operate the projection surface and to control the manufacturing machine (para. 0029) and/or the part of a production line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2-6-26