DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s RCE filed 10/29/2025, claims 1-30 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, 20-27, and 30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US 11,783,727) in view of Anvari et al. (US 2009/0253109) and Gupta (US 2018/0180893).
Regarding claims 1-2, 11-12, 20-21, and 30, Kelly discloses a system for welding training, comprising a portable mask system with a processor which interacts with a separate tool to implement instructions. See col. 5:14 – col. 6: 13. Kelly discloses wherein the system guides the user with vibrational haptic feedback. See col. 8: 60-65.
Kelly discloses wherein the system can receive the instructions from a remote computer, and provide feedback regarding user compliance with the instructions to the remote computer. See col. 10: 17-60.
Kelly also does not teach wherein the live first display and vibrational haptic feedback of the user is presented on a live display and as haptic feedback to a user being worn by a different user (e.g. an instructor) on a different mask system, and wherein instructions can be presented via a retinal display separate from environment display. However, these are established concepts with regard to AR training systems, as is disclosed by the training system of Anvari in paragraph 0068 (separate systems showing same things and presenting the same vibrational feedback), and the information system of Gupta in paragaphs 0037 and 0051 (information on separate retinal display), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider these concepts with the Kelly system, in order to provide guidance and feedback.
Regarding claims 3-4, 6, 13-16, and 22-25, Kelly discloses wherein the system provides the user with visual and audio AR multimedia data pertaining to the instructions for performing the task. See col. 9: 8-24.
Regarding claim 5, Kelly discloses wherein the data can be a simulation. See col. 7: 54-60.
Regarding claims 7, 17, and 26, Kelly discloses wherein the multiple systems can operate from a remote server. See col. 10: 35-45, and note that the system is for multiple students (i.e. multiple systems).
Regarding claims 8, 18, and 27, Kelly discloses wherein the system comprises a welding tool and a welding gun. See col. 8: 10-15.
Claims 9-10, 19, 28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US 11,783,727) in view of Anvari et al. (US 2009/0253109) and Gupta (US 2018/0180893) and also Ba et al. (US 2022/0404819).
Regarding claims 9-10, 19, and 28, Kelly does not disclose using AI to determine and display various identity perception-based objects and features, assembly defects, or recommendations. However, using AI for such tasks is well-established, as is disclosed by the inspection system of Ba in paragraph 0064. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Kelly system, in order to provide system refinement.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US 11,783,727) in view of Anvari et al. (US 2009/0253109) and Gupta (US 2018/0180893) and also Cernasov et al. (US 2009/0325131).
Regarding claim 29, Kelly does not disclose a monocular. However, the use of such with similar systems is established, as is disclosed by the AR assistance system of Cernasov in paragraph 0030. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Kelly system, in order to provide visual guidance to the user.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 10/29/2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights