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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 9 and 10 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant broadly suggests the features recited in amended claim 1 represent technological improvement over existing systems and integrate any abstract idea upon with claim 1 touches into a practical application, namely networked terminal communications. Examiner notes that “providing the factory worker with the ability to click buttons displayed in the image in order to gain more information…” is a method of data gathering implemented by a computer. Further, the specification [0028] describes the working terminal as a laptop, smart phone, etc. A laptop or smart phone interface with selectable icons to gather information (as shown in figure 10 of applicant’s specification) amounts to using a computer as a tool to gather data over a network. The rejection has been updated.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of Dusik et al and Ishikawa et al 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. A new reference, Conner et al, US 2015/0325047, is introduced to address the most recent amendments to the claims. Conner et al discloses a maintenance application that uses augmented reality to provide maintenance assistance to a user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-10, 12 and 13 is/are directed to a system, a device and a method. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the independent claims recite mental processes. More specifically,
obtaining imaging information including an image of the facility captured with a camera;
obtaining instructing information serving to offer an instruction for the work carried out in the facility;
processing the captured image based on the imaging information and the instructing information to generate working information concerning the work carried out in the facility that includes the captured image that has been processed; and
outputting the working information is mental processes, wherein processing of the captured image includes overlaying the instructing information as annotations on the captured image to highlight components of the facility to work and dynamically updating the annotations based on inputs from the instructing terminal.
The recited steps amount to observations and evaluations that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. A human can obtain/observe an image produced by a camera and subsequently annotate the captured image. The nominal recitation of a system comprising a working terminal, an instructing terminal and a working communication device, a working display, an instructing display, an interface, an instructing communication device and selectable icon in claim 1; a service device comprising a server communication device, a working terminal, an instructing terminal, a processor and selectable icon in claim 9; and a working terminal, an instructing terminal and selectable icon in claim 10 does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. A system comprising a working terminal, an instructing terminal and a working communication device, a working display, an instructing display, an interface and an instructing communication device in claim 1; a service device comprising a server communication device, a working terminal, an instructing terminal and a processor in claim 9; and a working terminal and an instructing terminal in claim 10 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. With respect to the selectable icons on the working terminal, the specification [0028] describes the working terminal as a laptop, smart phone, etc. A laptop or smart phone interface with selectable icons to gather information (as shown in figure 10 of applicant’s specification) amounts to using a computer as a tool to gather data over a network. The claimed additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 recites generates the working information based on the imaging information and instructing information and output the working information. These observation/evaluation steps are mental processes that can practically be performed in the mind or with pen and paper. The claimed processor and server communication device amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 3 recites includes the captured image after being enlarged in the working information. This is a mental process that can practically be performed with pen and paper. The processor which is used to enlarge the image amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 4 recites translate text and include the translated text in the working information. This is a mental process that can practically be performed with pen and paper. The claimed processor amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 5-7, 12 and 13 recites steps to store and output data. The claimed server device with memory, working communication device and server communication device, as well as, the claimed processor and display amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 8 amounts to sending data to the working terminal with remote control information. This amounts to using a computer as a tool and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusik et al, US 2015/0146007, in view of Ishikawa et al, US 2020/0042794, and Conner et al, US 2015/0325047.
As per claim 1, Dusik et al discloses an information providing system for use in providing information of work carried out in a facility, the information providing system comprising: a working terminal; and an instructing terminal that communicates with the working terminal, (figure 1; [0020-0021] – processor communicates instruction information to the heads up display to show instructions for performing servicing of components) the working terminal comprising:
a working communication device that outputs imaging information including an image of the facility captured with a camera ([0020 display of image of component to be serviced); and
a working display that displays working information concerning the work carried out in the facility, the instructing terminal comprising:
an instructing display that displays the captured image based on the imaging information ([0020] – image includes indication of location of component to be serviced and [0021] image information of task completion);
an interface that receives instructing information serving to offer an instruction for the work carried out in the facility ([0020] – instructions for performing the service work); and
an instructing communication device that outputs the instructing information, the working terminal being configured to display, on the working display, the captured image processed based on the imaging information and the instructing information, as the working information (figure 3; [0011, 0012, 0020] – instructions and component information are displayed on the heads up display).
Dusik et al fails to explicitly disclose while Ishikawa et al discloses wherein processing of the captured image includes overlaying the instructing information as annotations on the captured image to highlight components of the facility to work ([0050, 0058-0059] – annotation of image related to facility tasks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to annotate images as taught by Ishikawa et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Dusik et al and Ishikawa et al fail to explicitly disclose the working information comprises captured image that has been processed having one or more selectable icons overlaid thereon, each selectable icon configured to provide access to corresponding reference information related to the work. Conner et al discloses a maintenance assistance system the includes a display that presents data in the visual field using a translucent overlay of graphical elements including without limitations: icons, text, schematics or diagrams associated with a target apparatus or surrounding structures, location information, maps and other indications of travel directions and position movement within a visual field, animation or still imagery depicting repair instructions, and indications of emphasis (e.g., highlighting, pointing arrows, and/or flashing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to present data in the visual field using a translucent overlay of graphical elements including icons, as taught by Conner et al since both relate to task assistance using heads up display HUD /augmented reality HUD and the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Dusik et al discloses the information providing system according to claim 1, further comprising a server device that communicates with the working terminal and the instructing terminal, the server device comprising: a processor that generates the working information based on the imaging information and the instructing information; and a server communication device that outputs the working information to the working terminal ([0020], figure 3 – image is output along with instructions to perform the component servicing).
As per claim 3, Dusik et al discloses the information providing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor enlarges a part of the captured image included in the imaging information based on the instructing information and includes the captured image after being enlarged in the working information (figure 3 – enlarged portion of components that needs servicing).
As per claim 5, Dusik et al discloses the information providing system according to claim 2, wherein the server device includes a memory that stores reference information to be consulted for the work carried out in the facility, and the processor includes, in the working information, the reference information selected based on the instructing information ([0020] – instruction information can be accessed during servicing to assist with procedure).
As per claim 7, Dusik et al discloses the information providing system according to claim 2, wherein the server communication device further outputs the working information to the instructing terminal, and the instructing display displays the working information ([0020] – instruction information can be accessed during servicing to assist with procedure).
As per claim 9, Dusik et al discloses a server device for use in providing information of work carried out in a facility, the server device [0012] comprising: a server communication device that communicates with a working terminal and an instructing terminal (figure 1; [0020-0021] – processor communicates instruction information to the heads up display to show instructions for performing servicing of components); and
a processor [0003-0005, 0012], the server communication device obtaining, from the working terminal, imaging information including an image of the facility captured with a camera ([0020 display of image of component to be serviced);
obtaining, from the instructing terminal, instructing information serving to offer an instruction for work carried out in the facility, the processor processing the captured image based on the imaging information and the instructing information to generate working information concerning the work carried out in the facility that includes the captured image that has been processed ([0020] – instructions for performing the service work, image includes indication of location of component to be serviced and [0021] image information of task completion), and
the server communication device being configured to output the working information to the working terminal (figure 3; [0011, 0012, 0020] – instructions and component information are displayed on the heads up display).
Dusik et al fails to explicitly disclose while Ishikawa et al discloses wherein processing of the captured image includes overlaying the instructing information as annotations on the captured image to highlight components of the facility to work ([0050, 0058-0059] – annotation of image related to facility tasks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to annotate images as taught by Ishikawa et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Dusik et al and Ishikawa et al fail to explicitly disclose the working information comprises captured image that has been processed having one or more selectable icons overlaid thereon, each selectable icon configured to provide access to corresponding reference information related to the work. Conner et al discloses a maintenance assistance system the includes a display that presents data in the visual field using a translucent overlay of graphical elements including without limitations: icons, text, schematics or diagrams associated with a target apparatus or surrounding structures, location information, maps and other indications of travel directions and position movement within a visual field, animation or still imagery depicting repair instructions, and indications of emphasis (e.g., highlighting, pointing arrows, and/or flashing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to present data in the visual field using a translucent overlay of graphical elements including icons, as taught by Conner et al since both relate to task assistance using heads up display HUD /augmented reality HUD and the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Dusik et al discloses an information providing method for use in providing information of work carried out in a facility, the information providing method comprising:
obtaining, from a working terminal, imaging information including an image of the facility captured with a camera ([0020 display of image of component to be serviced);
obtaining, from an instructing terminal, instructing information serving to offer an instruction for work carried out in the facility;
processing the captured image based on the imaging information and the instructing information to generate working information concerning the work carried out in the facility that includes the captured image that has been processed ([0020] – instructions for performing the service work, image includes indication of location of component to be serviced and [0021] image information of task completion); and
outputting the working information to the working terminal (figure 3; [0011, 0012, 0020] – instructions and component information are displayed on the heads up display).
Dusik et al fails to explicitly disclose while Ishikawa et al discloses wherein processing of the captured image includes overlaying the instructing information as annotations on the captured image to highlight components of the facility to work ([0050, 0058-0059] – annotation of image related to facility tasks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to annotate images as taught by Ishikawa et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Dusik et al and Ishikawa et al fail to explicitly disclose the working information comprises captured image that has been processed having one or more selectable icons overlaid thereon, each selectable icon configured to provide access to corresponding reference information related to the work. Conner et al discloses a maintenance assistance system the includes a display that presents data in the visual field using a translucent overlay of graphical elements including without limitations: icons, text, schematics or diagrams associated with a target apparatus or surrounding structures, location information, maps and other indications of travel directions and position movement within a visual field, animation or still imagery depicting repair instructions, and indications of emphasis (e.g., highlighting, pointing arrows, and/or flashing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to present data in the visual field using a translucent overlay of graphical elements including icons, as taught by Conner et al since both relate to task assistance using heads up display HUD /augmented reality HUD and the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12, Dusik et al discloses the reference information includes a work procedure ([0020] – various ways to display the work to be performed).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusik et al, Ishikawa et al and Conner et al, as applied to claims 1 and 2 and further in view of Ordy et al, US 2016/0031570.
As per claim 4, Dusik et al discloses the information providing system according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor translates a text included in the instructing information and includes the translated text in the working information. Ordy et al describes a maintenance system wherein instruction information is translated from one language to another [0055]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to translate instruction text as taught by Ordy et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusik et al, Ishikawa et al and Conner et al, as applied to claims 1, 2 and 5, in view of Rakshit et al, US 2021/0209440.
As per claim 6, Dusik et al discloses the information providing system according to claim 5, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the working communication device outputs, to the server device, identification information used to identify a user of the working terminal, and the processor includes, in the working information, the reference information selected based on the instructing information and the identification information. Rakshit et al discloses a virtual assistant system that issues instructions to users based on their user profile [0084-0085]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al instructions based on a user as taught by Rakshit et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusik et al, Ishikawa et al and Conner et al, in view of Kodama et al, US 2014/0240484.
As per claim 8, Dusik et al discloses the information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the working terminal includes the camera [0021], but Dusik et al fails to explicitly disclose and the instructing communication device outputs, to the working terminal, remote control information for remote control of the camera. Kodama et al discloses a support system for performing a task wherein a head mount display is provided with a camera and wherein control information is output to the system to zoom or acquire a picture [0032-0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to send control operations to the camera as taught by Kodama et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 13, Dusik et al fails to explicitly disclose while Kodama et al discloses the reference information includes manuals of the facility ([0060-0061] – manual for procedure is displayed with images and descriptions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dusik et al the ability to include manuals as taught by Kodama et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent art is cited in the attached PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625