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 .
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 6/18/2026. Claims 1-11 are presented for examination. No independent claims were amended and no dependent claims were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant, with regard to claims 1, 10, 11, argues that Montgomerie’s suggestion of displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed is hindsight. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Also, the Applicant, with regards to claims 1, 10, 11, argues that paragraph 0043 of Montgomerie teaches the opposite of the claimed subject matter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph 0043 of Montgomerie teaches one embodiment out of many embodiments in the application. Further, the Examiner did not cite paragraph 0043 to teach the limitation of “displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed”. Instead, the Examiner cites paragraphs 0045, 0050, 0056 as another embodiment to suggest the above limitation. More specifically, since the overlay content includes 3D models and the 3D model is overlaid directly onto the object, the annotation including the 3D model of the object remains in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have realized displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed because these 3D models are used for step-by-step visual instructions and documentation during teaching or training situations where the supporter would be able to continuously guide the operator without any obstructions to the view of the model in order to reduce human error and minimize downtime [0040, 0056, 0067, 0083, 0166].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomerie et al. (U.S. Patent 20160291922).
In regards to claim 1, Montgomerie teaches an information processing system [e.g. system for sharing Augmented Reality (“AR”) elements layered on top of real world views between a local user and one or more remote, 0037] comprising:
a processor [e.g. computers inherently comprise at least one processor, 0047] configured to:
display a three-dimensional model representing an object [Fig. 2; e.g. displaying the 3D model representing the recognized object, 0045, 0056], following a position [e.g. the 3D model of the object changes orientation based on the camera device’s movement, 0043, 0062-0063] of an information processing apparatus [Fig. 2; e.g. camera device, 0056] that photographs the object [Fig. 2; e.g. subject or object, 0058], on a display [Fig. 2; e.g. display device, 0057] for a supporter [Fig. 2; e.g. remote expert, 0056] who supports an operation by an operator [Fig. 2; e.g. The remote expert provides technical assistance to the local user as the local user is performing repairs, 0056, 0083] who uses the information processing apparatus; and
when a specific operation is performed for the three-dimensional model displayed on the display [e.g. if the remote expert were to select an object in the local user's view and annotate the object, 0050], display the annotation on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed [e.g. when the local user moves the field of view of the camera, the annotation may not track the object and instead may remain in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device, 0050].
Montgomerie does not explicitly teach displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed (emphasis added).
However, Montgomerie does suggest displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed [e.g. Since the overlay content includes 3D models and the 3D model is overlaid directly onto the object, the annotation including the 3D model of the object remains in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device, 0045, 0050, 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have realized displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed because these 3D models are used for step-by-step visual instructions and documentation during teaching or training situations where the supporter would be able to continuously guide the operator without any obstructions to the view of the model in order to reduce human error and minimize downtime [0040, 0056, 0067, 0083, 0166].
In regards to claim 2, Montgomerie teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the specific operation is an operation for enlarged display of the three-dimensional model [e.g. the remote expert zooms in on the 3D model, 0049, 0064].
In regards to claim 3, Montgomerie teaches the information processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the specific operation is an operation for providing an annotation to the three-dimensional model displayed on the display [e.g. if the remote expert were to select an object in the local user's view and annotate the object, 0050], and
wherein in a case where the annotation is provided to the three-dimensional model, the annotation is displayed, via the information processing apparatus, at a position with respect to the object, the position corresponding to a position at which the annotation is provided with respect to the three-dimensional model [e.g. The annotation is drawn on the remote expert’s screen using a pointing device. The path traced using the pointing device is then reflected upon the local user device, in the location within the AR environment in which it was originally drawn. As the local user view is moved within the environment, the traced path remains in place relative to the original view position and appears locked onto the object the local user is working on, 0044, 0050].
In regards to claim 4, Montgomerie teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, even when the information processing apparatus moves within a predetermined operation region [e.g. as the local user moves around the object within the workspace, 0040, 0054], display the annotation on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed [e.g. when the local user moves the field of view of the camera, the annotation may not track the object and instead may remain in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device, 0050].
Montgomerie does not explicitly teach displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed (emphasis added).
However, Montgomerie does suggest displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed [e.g. Since the overlay content includes 3D models and the 3D model is overlaid directly onto the object, the annotation including the 3D model of the object remains in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device, 0045, 0050, 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have realized displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed because these 3D models are used for step-by-step visual instructions and documentation during teaching or training situations where the supporter would be able to continuously guide the operator without any obstructions to the view of the model in order to reduce human error and minimize downtime [0040, 0056, 0067, 0083, 0166].
In regards to claim 5, Montgomerie teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to, even when the information processing apparatus moves within a predetermined operation region [e.g. as the local user moves around the object within the workspace, 0040, 0054], display the annotation on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed [e.g. when the local user moves the field of view of the camera, the annotation may not track the object and instead may remain in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device, 0050].
Montgomerie does not explicitly teach displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed (emphasis added).
However, Montgomerie does suggest displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed [e.g. Since the overlay content includes 3D models and the 3D model is overlaid directly onto the object, the annotation including the 3D model of the object remains in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device, 0045, 0050, 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have realized displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed because these 3D models are used for step-by-step visual instructions and documentation during teaching or training situations where the supporter would be able to continuously guide the operator without any obstructions to the view of the model in order to reduce human error and minimize downtime [0040, 0056, 0067, 0083, 0166].
In regards to claim 6, Montgomerie teaches the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to, even when the information processing apparatus moves within a predetermined operation region [e.g. as the local user moves around the object within the workspace, 0040, 0054], display the annotation on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed [e.g. when the local user moves the field of view of the camera, the annotation may not track the object and instead may remain in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device, 0050].
Montgomerie does not explicitly teach displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed (emphasis added).
However, Montgomerie does suggest displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed [e.g. Since the overlay content includes 3D models and the 3D model is overlaid directly onto the object, the annotation including the 3D model of the object remains in the same position on the screen, regardless of the local user's field of view so as to not change position or orientation according to movement of the local user device, 0045, 0050, 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have realized displaying the three-dimensional model on the display in such a manner that an orientation of the three-dimensional model is fixed because these 3D models are used for step-by-step visual instructions and documentation during teaching or training situations where the supporter would be able to continuously guide the operator without any obstructions to the view of the model in order to reduce human error and minimize downtime [0040, 0056, 0067, 0083, 0166].
In regards to claim 10, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising: the steps of claim 1. Furthermore, Montgomerie teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium [e.g. digital storage, 0041] storing a program [e.g. AR workflow, 0041] causing a computer [e.g. computer, 0047] to execute a process comprising: the steps of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in method form. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the information processing system according to claim 4,
wherein three-dimensional models with different orientations are set for individual operation regions, and
wherein the processor is configured to display the three-dimensional models on the display in such a manner that orientations of the three-dimensional models are different among the operation regions in which the information processing apparatus is present.
In regards to claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the information processing system according to claim 5,
wherein three-dimensional models with different orientations are set for individual operation regions, and
wherein the processor is configured to display the three-dimensional models on the display in such a manner that orientations of the three-dimensional models are different among the operation regions in which the information processing apparatus is present.
In regards to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the information processing system according to claim 6,
wherein three-dimensional models with different orientations are set for individual operation regions, and
wherein the processor is configured to display the three-dimensional models on the display in such a manner that orientations of the three-dimensional models are different among the operation regions in which the information processing apparatus is present.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM 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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights