Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Preliminary Amendment filed 11/8/23 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim independent 1 recites “an apparatus comprising a graphical user interface comprising a graphical representation of a client device located at a remote location and a plurality of respective graphical representations of additional devices located at the remote location…” This is an apparatus claim but it does not positively recite hardware as part of the apparatus, thus making the claim software per se. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed toward patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 4-6, dependent from claim 1, do not remedy the issue and are rejected as well.
Claims 2-3 indeed do recite hardware devices and thus do recite statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 7 recites an apparatus comprising a graphical user interface at a client computer device. This is an apparatus claim but it does not positively recite hardware as part of the apparatus, thus making the claim software per se. Therefore, claim 7 is not directed toward patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 8-14, dependent from claim 7, do not remedy the issue and are rejected as well.
Independent claim 15 recites a method that displays a graphical user interface at a client computer device, and so claim 15 (and dependent claims 16-20) recite statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
5. This application is a continuation of application 17/574114, filed 1/12/22, now US Patent 11,693,677, which is a continuation of application 16/941169, filed 7/28/20, now US Patent 11,231, 945, which is a continuation of application 15/761066, filed 3/16/18, now US Patent 10,725,801.
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
7. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8-11, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,677. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because please see the correspondence below:
Regarding claim 1, ‘677 claim 8 shows an apparatus comprising a graphical user interface comprising a graphical representation of a client device located at a remote user location and a plurality of respective provider graphical representations of additional devices located at the user remote location external and proximate the client device (column 14 lines 29-33 recite displaying the graphical user interface depicting a graphical representation of the client device located at the user location and respective provider graphical representations of additional devices located at the user location. Note also column 14 lines 25-26 show the user of the client device and thus the user remote location is proximate the client device), the plurality of respective graphical representations of additional devices arranged so as to depict a spatial relationship of the additional devices relative to the client device at the remote location (column 14 lines 32-36 show the respective provider graphical representations of additional devices depicted as located at the user location in a manner that depicts a spatial relationship of each of the additional devices relative to the client device at the remote location); and a graphical indicator associated with one of the plurality of graphical representations of the additional devices and arranged to indicate which of the additional devices located at the remote location is being selected for use (column 14 lines 46-47 show displaying a respective indicator at the graphical user interface, and column 14 lines 54-59 show the respective indicator specifies one of the respective client graphical representations of the additional devices at the graphical user interface of the client device thereby spatially indicating which of the additional devices the user is being instructed to operate), wherein the additional devices comprise one or more of medical diagnostic devices, medical treatment devices, or laboratory equipment (column 14 lines 36-39 show this verbatim).
Regarding claim 2, ‘677 claim 10 (column 15 lines 3-5) show receiving inputs from one or more of a pointing device, a gesturing device, a keyboard, a motion capture device, and an imaging device.
Regarding claim 3, ‘677 claim 11 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 4, ‘677 claim 8 shows the graphical user interface is part of a help computer system communicatively coupled to the client device (column 14 lines 1-2 show the system provides live help to a user of a client device, lines 29-30 show the live help provider graphical user interface depicts a graphical user interface of the client device, and line 45 shows the system transmitting instructions to the client device).
Regarding claim 5, ‘677 claim 13 shows the graphical user interface comprises a virtual reality environment of the additional devices at the remote location (column 15 lines 14-17 show the graphical user interface presents a virtual reality environment to indicate actions corresponding to the additional devices at the user location).
Regarding claim 7, ‘677 claim 8 shows an apparatus comprising a graphical user interface at a client computer device (column 14 lines 45-48 show the graphical user interface of the client device), the graphical user interface comprising a graphical indicator generated in response to input at a remote computing system (column 14 lines 45-48 and 53-56 show generating at the user location in response to instructions corresponding to the inputs from the live help provider, the respective graphical indicator), the graphical indicator displayed in a manner indicating which of a plurality of additional devices located in an area external and proximate the client device is to be selected for use (column 14 lines 46-47 show displaying a respective indicator at the graphical user interface, and column 14 lines 53-59 show the respective indicator specifies one of the respective client graphical representations of the additional devices at the graphical user interface of the client device thereby spatially indicating which of the additional devices the user is being instructed to operate), wherein the plurality of additional devices comprise one or more of medical diagnostic devices, medical treatment devices, or laboratory equipment (column 14 lines 36-39 show this verbatim).
Regarding claim 8, ‘677 claim 9 shows the graphical indicator appears as though the graphical user interface is a window showing a live individual as physically indicating which of the plurality of additional devices is to be selected for use (column 14 lines 63-67 show the graphical user interface is a window showing the live help elements appearing as a live help provider touching, gesturing, or indicating. Claim 9 depends on claim 8 in which column 14 lines 54-59 show the live help element is the respective indicator which specifies which of the additional devices the user is being instructed to operate).
Regarding claim 10, ‘677 claim 8 shows the client computer device is communicatively coupled to a remote help computer system (column 14 lines 1-2 show the system provides live help to a user of a client device, lines 29-30 show the live help provider graphical user interface depicts a graphical user interface of the client device, and line 45 shows the system transmitting instructions to the client device).
Regarding claim 12, ‘677 claim 8 shows the client computer device is part of a medical or laboratory instrument (column 14 lines 37-39 show the medical or laboratory devices associated with the client computer).
Regarding claim 15, ‘677 claim 1 shows a method for providing an interactive user interface, the method displaying a graphical user interface at a client computer device (column 13 lines 2-5 show displaying the graphical user interface of the client device); in response to receiving input at the client computer device from a remote computing system communicatively coupled to the client computer device, generating as part of the graphical user interface a graphical indicator (column 13 lines 48-50 and 55-58 show generating at the graphical user interface of the client device in response to transmitted instructions corresponding to inputs from the live help provider, the respective graphical indicator), indicating which of a plurality of additional devices located in an area external and proximate the client device is to be selected for use (column 13 lines 48-50 show displaying a respective indicator at the graphical user interface, and column 13 lines 56-62 show the respective indicator specifies one of the respective client graphical representations of the additional devices at the graphical user interface of the client device thereby spatially indicating which of the additional devices the user is being instructed to operate), wherein the plurality of additional devices comprise one or more of medical diagnostic devices, medical treatment devices, or laboratory equipment (column 13 lines 39-42 show this verbatim).
Regarding claim 17, ‘677 claim 2 shows the graphical indicator appears as though the graphical user interface is a window showing a live individual as physically indicating which of the plurality of additional devices is to be selected for use (column 13 lines 67-68 and column 14 lines 1-3 show the graphical user interface is a window showing the live help elements appearing as a live help provider touching, gesturing, or indicating. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 in which column 13 lines 57-62 show the live help element is the respective indicator which specifies which of the additional devices the user is being instructed to operate).
8. Claims 6, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 contain features which distinguish over all the parent applications’ claims, and the double patenting rejection would not apply to these claims.
Claim Interpretation
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
10. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”), in particular claims 6 and 13, are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al “Jones” (AU 2009218872 B2).
(Please see the attached copy of Jones which numbers paragraphs in the same format as that used in this Action).
14. Regarding claim 1, Jones shows an apparatus comprising a graphical user interface comprising a graphical representation of a client device located at a remote location and a plurality of respective graphical representations of additional devices located at the remote location external and proximate the client device (para 10, Figure 13C, 14A-B shows the graphical user interface with the virtual laboratory layout showing the graphical representation of a desktop computer and a plurality of respective graphical representations of additional separate laboratory devices located next to the desktop computer, para 39, 54-55, 90 show the separate laboratory devices and desktop computer together make up a workstation, para 55, 142 show the workstation may be at a remote location from where the graphical user interface is displayed), the plurality of respective graphical representations of additional devices arranged so as to depict a spatial relationship of each of the additional devices relative to the client device at the remote location (para 10, 12 show the plurality of respective graphical representations of the laboratory devices are arranged to mirror the physical layout of the actual laboratory devices around the desktop computer; they physically show the spatial relationship of each of the laboratory devices relative to the desktop computer, and para 55, 142 show this workstation arrangement at the remote location); and a graphical indicator associated with one of the plurality of graphical representations of the additional devices and arranged to indicate which of the additional devices located at the remote location is being selected for use (para 133, 134, 138, 142 show the graphical indicators such as arrows or cues indicating which device for a user/operator to select and use), wherein the additional devices comprise one or more of medical diagnostic devices, medical treatment devices, or laboratory equipment (Figures 13B, 14A-B, para 10, 56, 65 all for example show the additional devices are indeed laboratory equipment devices).
15. Regarding claim 2, Jones shows the input device comprising one or more of a pointing device, a gesturing device, a keyboard, a motion capture device, and an imaging device (note the alternative recitation - para 89 shows the keyboard, para 145 shows the camera which is a motion capture device).
16. Regarding claim 3, the motion capture device includes one or more of a camera, a proximity sensor, a smart glove, a sonar, and an echolocation sensor (note the alternative recitation - para 145 shows the cameras).
17. Regarding claim 4, the graphical user interface is part of a help computer system communicatively coupled to the client device (para 88, 131, 142, Figure 8 show the graphical user interface displaying the virtual laboratory layout may be used as part of a service request showing operation of a device. Para 140, 147 show the computer system displaying the graphical user interface is connected via a network to the laboratory devices at the workstation, and since the desktop computer and laboratory devices are connected to each other in the physical laboratory to make up the workstation as shown in para 39, 54-55, 90, therefore the help/service computer system displaying the virtual laboratory layout is thus communicatively coupled to the desktop computer).
18. Regarding claim 5, the graphical user interface further comprises a virtual reality environment of the additional devices at the remote location (Jones para 10, Figure 13C, 14A-B shows the graphical user interface with the virtual laboratory layout including the virtual reality environment of the respective additional separate laboratory devices, para 39, 54-55, 90 show the separate laboratory devices and desktop computer together make up a virtual workstation, para 55, 142 show the workstation may be at a remote location from the where the graphical user interface is displayed).
19. Regarding claim 6, Jones shows the means for receiving a visualization of action of a user at the remote location (Jones para 89-90 show a user may input using a variety of means such as keyboard or touchscreen within the virtual [and thus visualized] environment. The input is received and displayed to the administrator at a display at a remote management station separate from the physical environment being virtualized/visualized. Also para 145 shows the camera system provides live video feedback of the user actions).
20. Regarding claim 7, note this claim is from the perspective of the graphical user interface displayed at the client device at the user location of the physical laboratory. Jones shows a graphical user interface at a client computer device (para 133 shows a graphical user interface in the physical laboratory that the user is viewing), the graphical user interface comprising: a graphical indicator generated in response to input at a remote computing system, the graphical indicator displayed in a manner indicating which of a plurality of additional devices located in an area external and proximate the client device is to be selected for use (para 133, 134, 138, 142 show the graphical indicators such as arrows or cues displayed on a graphical user interface having a virtual laboratory layout of laboratory devices, indicating which device for a user/operator to select and use, para 133 makes it clear that these graphical indicators are displayed on a graphical user interface at a client computer where the user is operating the devices, and para 140, 142, 147 show the graphical indicators are generated in response to a remote operator making selections to display the indicators), wherein the plurality of additional devices comprise one or more of medical diagnostic devices, medical treatment devices, or laboratory equipment (Figures 13B, 14A, para 10, 56, 65 all for example show the additional devices are indeed laboratory equipment devices).
21. Regarding claim 9, Jones shows one or more image capture devices arranged to capture one or more images of an environment including the client device and the plurality of additional devices (para 145 shows the camera system provides live video feedback of the virtual laboratory devices and computer located in the physical laboratory).
22. Regarding claim 10, Jones shows the client computer device is communicatively coupled to a remote help computer system (para 88, 131, 142, Figure 8 show the graphical user interface displaying the virtual laboratory layout may be used as part of a service request showing operation of a device. Para 140, 147 show the computer system displaying the graphical user interface at a remote location is connected via a network to the laboratory devices at the workstation, and since the desktop computer [which here is the client device] and laboratory devices are connected to each other in the physical laboratory to make up the workstation as shown in para 39, 54-55, 90, therefore the help/service computer system displaying the virtual laboratory layout is thus communicatively coupled to the desktop computer/client device).
23. Regarding claim 11, Jones shows the client computer device is one of a desktop computer, a smart TV, a tablet, a laptop, or a smart phone (Figures 13C, 14A-B show the client computer device at the physical laboratory is a desktop computer).
24. Regarding claim 12, Jones shows the client computer device is part of a medical or laboratory instrument (para 39, 54-55, 90 show the separate laboratory devices and desktop computer together make up a workstation, and para 133 shows the graphical user interface at a client computer where the user is operating a particular laboratory device like the staining station).
25. Regarding claim 14, Jones shows the graphical indicator comprises a pointer icon or a hand icon (para 134, 138 show the arrow indicators which are pointer icons).
26. Regarding claim 15, note this claim is from the perspective of the graphical user interface displayed at the client device at the user location of the physical laboratory. Jones shows a method for providing an interactive user interface, the method comprising displaying a graphical user interface at a client computer device (para 133 shows a graphical user interface at a computer device in the physical laboratory that the user is viewing); in response to receiving input at the client computer device from a remote computing system communicatively coupled to the client computer device (para 140, 147 show a computer system displaying the graphical user interface at a remote location is connected via a network to the laboratory devices at the workstation including the desktop computer, which per para 133 is the client device at the physical laboratory), generating as part of the graphical user interface a graphical indicator indicating which of a plurality of additional devices located in an area external and proximate the client device is to be selected for use (para 133, 134, 138, 142 show the graphical indicators such as arrows or cues displayed on a graphical user interface having a virtual laboratory layout of laboratory devices, indicating which device for a user/operator to select and use, Figures 13C, 14A-B, para 133 show the additional devices are located in an area external and proximate the client device, para 133 makes it clear that these graphical indicators are displayed on a graphical user interface at a client computer where the user is operating the devices, and para 140, 142, 147 show the graphical indicators are generated in response to the remote operator making selections to display the indicators), wherein the plurality of additional devices comprise one or more of medical diagnostic devices, medical treatment devices, or laboratory equipment (Figures 13B, 14A, para 10, 56, 65 all for example show the additional devices are indeed laboratory equipment devices).
27. Regarding claim 16, Jones shows transmitting to the remote computing system from the client computer device a request for help relating to use of the additional devices (para 88, 131, 142, Figure 8 show the remote graphical user interface displaying the virtual laboratory layout may be used as part of a service request sent from the workstation at the physical laboratory, showing operation of one of the laboratory devices. Note also how para 39, 54-55, 90 show the separate laboratory devices and desktop computer together make up a workstation).
28. Regarding claim 18, Jones shows capturing one or more images of an environment including the client device and the plurality of additional devices and transmitting data relating the one or more images to the remote computing system (para 145 shows the camera system provides live video feedback of the virtual laboratory devices and computer located in the physical laboratory).
29. Regarding claim 20, Jones shows transmitting from the client computer device to the remote computing system a visualization of action of a user of the client computer device (Jones para 89-90 show a user may input using a variety of means such as keyboard or touchscreen within the virtual [and thus visualized] environment. The input is received and displayed to the administrator at a display at a remote management station separate from the physical environment being virtualized/visualized. Also para 145 shows the camera system provides live video feedback of the user actions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
30. 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.
31. Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Uhma et al “Uhma” (US 2015/0381931 A1).
32. Regarding claim 8, in addition to that mentioned for claim 7, Jones does not explicitly show the graphical indicator appears as though the graphical user interface is a window showing a live individual as physically indicating which of the plurality of additional devices is to be selected for use. Uhma however does show a graphical indicator appears as though the graphical user interface is a window showing a live individual as physically indicating which of the plurality of graphical elements representing operations to be selected for use (Uhma para 38, 54-55, Figure 3C show the live help operator appearing in the window of the graphical user interface and physically pointing to graphical elements representing operations to be performed). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the live operator appearing in the window of the graphical user interface and physically pointing to graphical elements representing operations to be performed as is shown in Uhma, in the virtual laboratory layout of Jones so that the graphical indicator of Jones would be the a live individual physically indicating which of the plurality of additional devices is to be selected for use, because it would provide an efficient and user friendly way to indicate which of the additional devices is to be selected for use.
33. Regarding claim 17, in addition to that mentioned for claim 15, Jones does not explicitly show the graphical indicator appears as though the graphical user interface is a window showing a live individual as physically indicating which of the plurality of additional devices is to be selected for use. Uhma however does show a graphical indicator appears as though the graphical user interface is a window showing a live individual as physically indicating which of the plurality of graphical elements representing operations to be selected for use (Uhma para 38, 54-55, Figure 3C show the live help operator appearing in the window of the graphical user interface and physically pointing to graphical elements representing operations to be performed). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the live operator appearing in the window of the graphical user interface and physically pointing to graphical elements representing operations to be performed as is shown in Uhma, in the virtual laboratory layout of Jones so that the graphical indicator of Jones would be the a live individual physically indicating which of the plurality of additional devices is to be selected for use, because it would provide an efficient and user friendly way to indicate which of the additional devices is to be selected for use.
34. Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Park (US 20090307255 A1).
35. Regarding claim 13, in addition to that mentioned for claim 7, please note the alternative recitation. Jones does not explicitly show determining a respective a geographical location of one or more of the client device and the additional devices. Park however does show a graphical user interface that displays a layout of remote building devices and determines a respective geographical location of an “additional” building device (para 91 shows the graphical user interface that displays a layout of remote building devices, and determines a respective geographical location of a particular one “additional” building device). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine a respective geographical location of a particular/additional building device as is shown in Park, in the virtual laboratory layout of Jones, because it would provide useful information to the remote management and help operator so that they can provide appropriate assistance and management (Park para 91-92).
36. Regarding claim 19, in addition to that mentioned for claim 15, please note the alternative recitation. Jones does not explicitly show determining a respective a geographical location of one or more of the client device and the additional devices. Park however does show a graphical user interface that displays a layout of remote building devices and determines a respective geographical location of an “additional” building device (para 91 shows the graphical user interface that displays a layout of remote building devices, and determines a respective geographical location of a particular one “additional” building device). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine a respective geographical location of a particular/additional building device as is shown in Park, in the virtual laboratory layout of Jones, because it would provide useful information to the remote management and help operator so that they can provide appropriate assistance and management (Park para 91-92).
Conclusion
37. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) Kanuganti (US 2016/0063893) uses live video feed of a user’s location to provide a graphical user interface with virtual area layout in order for a live agent to provide navigation assistance.
b) Misiaszek (US 12315509 B2) shows a virtual assistant to connect a user to a live agent.
c) Messinger (US 2014/0207417 A1) shows a graphical user interface providing live video feed of devices for inspection.
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN PAUL SAX whose telephone number is (571)272-4072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 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, Usmaan Saeed, can be reached at 571-272-4046. 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.
/STEVEN P SAX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146