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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridgeman (US 2019/0304188) in view of Popescu (US 9,203,681) and Young (US 2023/0233259).
Regarding claim 1, Bridgeman teaches collaborative work system comprising: a head mounted device, sized and configured to be worn by a local worker ([0029] VR module 110), including, a worker display and a camera configured to capture a video feed from the perspective of the local worker ([0035]); an input device configured to accept inputs from a remote helper, including, a helper display; and a shared virtual workspace displayed on the worker display and the helper display, comprising the video feed(Fig. 2 display 120[0036]) and annotations corresponding to the received inputs ([0050] pop-up window 450 are notes provided by trainer) wherein the virtual workspace further comprises a fixed coordinate space within a world-stabilized two-dimensional plane (Figs. 2 and 6-9 show different workspaces for collaboration.). Although Bridgeman teaches the limitations as discussed above, he fails to teach a virtual workspace that maintains a one-to-one spatial correspondence between physical world coordinates and virtual coordinates independent of camera movement
However in the same field of creating a collaborative work system Popescu teaches a system for remote collaboration where a virtual workspace that maintains a one-to-one spatial correspondence between physical world coordinates and virtual annotation coordinates independent of camera movement(Figs. 2-3 and respective description teach how the a camera captures video of the work environment and sends the stream to a remote user for collaboration Col. 5 lines 19-30, the remote user receives the stream of the work environment which can be annotated for collaboration Col. 5 lines 31-60, where the annotation is anchored to the stream for use in the work environment Col. 5 lines 61-67 through Col. 6 lines 1-19, and the anchored annotations remain although the camera position of the work environment may change Col. 6 lines 20-45) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system as taught by Bridgeman with the annotations method as taught by Popescu. This combination improves efficiency in a collaborative work between users as taught by Popescu (Col. 1 lines 50-67 through Col. 2 lines 1-5). Although the combination teaches the limitations as discussed above, they fail to teach a virtual workspace with annotations having established at a fixed spatial position in the physical environment that maintains a persistent one-to-one spatial correspondence independent of camera movement.
However in the field of presenting virtual workspaces to a user Young teaches a method where a virtual workspace with annotations having established at a fixed spatial position in the physical environment that maintains a persistent one-to-one spatial correspondence independent of camera movement ([0129] teaches a menu can be presented to the surgeon in a fixed location in the field of view even as the medical provider moves around the field of view of the actual scene, in the environment coordinate system as shown in Fig. 9A-9B.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system as taught by Bridgeman with the annotations method as taught by Popescu and the method of presenting virtual workspaces as taught by Young. This combination improves efficiency in a collaborative work between users as taught by Popescu (Col. 1 lines 50-67 through Col. 2 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Bridgeman teaches wherein the input device includes a touchpad configured to accept touch inputs from the remote helper ([0036][0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Bridgeman teaches a communication device configured to send and receive instructions between the local worker and the remote helper ([0036][0064] list different input/output methods for communication during collaborations.).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Bridgeman teaches wherein the communication device is a two-way audio-based communication device ([0022] teaches the system could use real-time voice and/or video communication).
Regarding claim 8, Bridgeman teaches A method for collaborative work, the method comprising: capturing a video feed from the perspective of a local worker ([0029] VR module 110); projecting a virtual workspace over the video feed; displaying said video feed to a remote helper (Fig. 2 [0035-0036]) recording inputs from the remote helper in the form of annotations; combining video feed and annotations to create an annotated video; and displaying annotated video feed to local worker([0050] pop-up window 450 are notes provided by trainer). Although Bridgeman teaches the limitations as discussed above, he fails to teach the virtual workspace comprises establishing a fixed coordinate space within a world-stabilized two-dimensional plane that maintains spatial correspondence between annotation positions and physical world locations independent of camera movement.
However in the same field of creating a collaborative work system Popescu teaches a system for remote collaboration where the virtual workspace comprises establishing a fixed coordinate space within a world-stabilized two-dimensional plane that maintains spatial correspondence between annotation positions and physical world locations independent of camera movement(Figs. 2-3 and respective description teach how the a camera captures video of the work environment and sends the stream to a remote user for collaboration Col. 5 lines 19-30, the remote user receives the stream of the work environment which can be annotated for collaboration Col. 5 lines 31-60, where the annotation is anchored to the stream for use in the work environment Col. 5 lines 61-67 through Col. 6 lines 1-19, and the anchored annotations remain although the camera position of the work environment may change Col. 6 lines 20-45) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system as taught by Bridgeman with the annotations method as taught by Popescu. This combination improves efficiency in a collaborative work between users as taught by Popescu (Col. 1 lines 50-67 through Col. 2 lines 1-5). Although the combination teaches the limitations as discussed above, they fail to teach a virtual workspace with annotations having established at a fixed spatial position in the physical environment that maintains a persistent one-to-one spatial correspondence independent of camera movement.
However in the field of presenting virtual workspaces to a user Young teaches a method where a virtual workspace with annotations having established at a fixed spatial position in the physical environment that maintains a persistent one-to-one spatial correspondence independent of camera movement ([0129] teaches a menu can be presented to the surgeon in a fixed location in the field of view even as the medical provider moves around the field of view of the actual scene, in the environment coordinate system as shown in Fig. 9A-9B.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system as taught by Bridgeman with the annotations method as taught by Popescu and the method of presenting virtual workspaces as taught by Young. This combination improves efficiency in a collaborative work between users as taught by Popescu (Col. 1 lines 50-67 through Col. 2 lines 1-5).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Bridgeman in view of Popescu teaches wherein the virtual workspace includes a cursor configured to move according to the inputs from the remote helper ([0046] virtual cursor 170) and Young teaches wherein the cursor maintains its position relative to physical world objects within the fixed coordinate space established at the fixed spatial position in the physical environment during camera movement ([0133]teaches an indicator may appear at the tip of the pointer 906 and the indicator 908 may be fixed to their location in the view of the medical provider even when the medical provider changes their field of view) .
Regarding claim 13, Bridgeman teaches wherein the annotated video displayed to the local worker using an augmented reality headset ([0029] VR module 110).
Regarding claim 14, Bridgeman teaches wherein the input device includes a touchpad configured to accept touch inputs from the remote helper ([0036][0064]).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridgeman (US 2019/0304188) in view Popescu (US 9,203,681) and Carney (US 2019/0385479).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Bridgman teaches the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the input device includes an erase function configured to erase select annotations.
However in the field of creating a collaboration tool for multiple users, Carney teaches wherein the input device includes an erase function configured to erase select annotations([0037][0092]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at to combine the system as taught by Bridgeman with the annotations method as taught by Popescu and the method of input as taught by Carney. This combination would provide an improved system of guiding a trainee through a process.
Regarding claim 10, Bridgman teaches the limitations as discussed above and Popescu teaches providing annotations stabilized within the fixed coordinate space (see claim 8 above), but does not teach wherein the input device includes an erase function configured to erase select annotations.
However in the field of creating a collaboration tool for multiple users, Carney teaches wherein the input device includes an erase function configured to erase select annotations([0037][0092]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at to combine the system as taught by Bridgeman with the annotation method as taught by Popescu and the method of input as taught by Carney. This combination would provide an improved system of guiding a trainee through a process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621