DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 4/22/2026.
Claims 1, 24 are Withdrawn
Claims 2 – 21 are cancelled.
Claims 22, 23, 25 – 41 are presented for examination.
Priority
ADS dated 12/07/2023 claims domestic priority to provisional 63/386382 dated 12/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 6/4/2024 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 12/07/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 12/07/2023 has 135 words and no legal phraseology and 9 lines. The abstract is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 34 is newly presented and depends from claim 1 which has been withdrawn. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 22, 23, 25 – 29, 32, 33, 35 - 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo_2021 (US 11,062,526 B1) in view of Venkatesha_2019 (US 10,360,728 B2) in view of Yerli_2019 (US 2019/0361589 A1) in view of Delamont_2020 (US 2020/0368616 A1).
Claim 22. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “A system (abstract: “a system and method for detecting and notifying access to a dangerous area… the system includes a server…”; Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3) comprising:
A detector configured to generate[danger] location data based on placement of a threat source (FIG. 3 block 314: “danger detector”, block 312: “location identifier:, FIG. 2 block 214: “danger setup unit”; FIG. 6: block 612: “set dangerous object or dangerous area”, block 618 “identify coordinates of smart glasses, block 620 “identify coordinates of dangerous object”); A display device (Fig. 1 glasses 140; FIG. 3 block 340: “Display”; COL 11: “… augmented reality mode by smart glasses…”); and a controller comprising a location module configured to track a [grid/mesh] location and an orientation of the display device (COL 1: “… continuously identifying coordinates of the smart glasses…”; COL 2: “… the smart glasses may be configured to continuously identify the coordinates of the smart glasses by performing triangulation…”; COL 8: “… smart glasses 140 may include a controller 310, a location identifier 312… the location identifier 312 may continuously identify coordinates of the smart glasses 140… may be a Bluetooth beacon signal, or a real time location system may be used…”) , A mapping module configured to generate [grid/mesh] data of an area, And combine the [gid/mesh] data and the [danger] location data to form an [danger] location map, (COL 1: “… a server configured to partition a workplace into grating sections to assign coordinates…”; COL 2: “… partitioning, by a server, a workplace into grating sections to assign coordinates… and displaying, by the server, a same grating as a grating generated by the server in an augmented reality model…”; FIG. 6 block 616: “display grating in augmented reality mode”) And a presentation module configured to display the [danger] location map on the display device based on the tracked location of the display device” (FIG. 6 block 624: “display grating of dangerous area or dangerous object in augmented reality mode”; FIG. 7 block 722: “transmit dangerous object coordinates and dangerous area information to smart glasses”; FIG. 8 block 820: “display grating of dangerous area or dangerous object in augmented reality mode”; COL 12: “… the smart glasses 140 may set an additional grating zone surrounding the dangerous area as a warning area, and may display the warning area in the augmented reality mode in a different color from that of the dangerous area. For example, the smart glasses 140 may display an area with the dangerous object or the dangerous area in read, and may display the warning area in yellow…”).
Yoo_2021 does not teach a “virtual” detector nor that the danger is due to an “analyte” nor that the location grid “three-dimensional (3D)”.
Yerli_2019 makes obvious “virtual” detector (abstract: “… interactive operation of real-time 3D virtual replicas… real-time 3D virtual replica of a real object is represented…”; FIG. 1B items 118 “virtual world system”, item 104 “virtual replica” ).
Yoo_2021 and Yerli_2019 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called interactive operation of equipment. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system and detectors of Yoo_2021 with the virtual models of Yerli_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been that Yoo_2021 teaches to have user that interact with systems including detectors that identify when and where danger is in a work area. Yerli_2019 teaches industries such as manufacturing, military, and automobiles can benefit from control technologies that enable monitoring along with management of objects involved in the industrial work area (par 3) by providing a flexible human machine interface. Yerli_2019 teaches that such an interface includes virtualized version of real-world objects “enabling a natural control and real-time 3D-based interaction with and between real objects via an interface through an accurate virtual replica of the real object” (par 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the detectors of Yoo_2021 with virtualized versions of detectors in the 3D environment taught by Yerli_2018 for the benefit of enabling a natural control and real-time 3D-based interaction to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Venkatesha_2019 make obvious “analyte” (FIG. 2 block 10 “hazard-tracking subsystem Sensor(s)”;
COL 1: “… augmented reality (AR) displays… the AR display present a user with a live direct or indirect view of the user’s environment… overlaid with objects/area in the display view to provide contextual information. This contextual information helps workers understand and avoid hazards in the workplace…”; COL 2: “… the system includes a hazard-tracking subsystem including at least one sensor for gathering hazard data… at least one sensor is a gas sensor for detecting an invisible gas… hazard-response messages include graphics to help a user visualize the invisible gas… the steps of gathering hazard data from at least one sensor…”).
Yoo_2021 and Venkatesha_2019 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called hazard detection. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yoo_2021 and Venkatesha_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been that Yoo_2021 teaches to use Augmented Reality to warn users of dangers and Venkatesha_2019 teaches to have an Augmented Reality system that warns users of dangers from invisible gases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoo_2021 and Venkatesha_2019 for the benefit of warning users of hazards resulting from an analyte known as invisible gases to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Delamont_2020 makes obvious “three-dimensional (3D)” (par 48: “… virtual images may be rendered and displayed on the optical display… as 3D images… overlaid onto real world objects surroundings and surfaces using spatial mapping generated mesh data and 3D models to create an augmented reality (“AR”) or mixed reality experience…”)
Yoo_2021 and Delamont_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called augmented reality displays. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yoo_2021 and Delamont_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Yoo_2021 teaches to have an augmented reality display and Delamont_2020 teaches to achieve an augmented reality display by mapping a generated mesh data and 3D models onto locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoo_2021 and Delamont_2020 for the benefit of overlaying hazard information onto the locations of hazards to warn the users with an AR system to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 23. Delamont_2020 makes obvious “wherein the controller is configured to position the virtual threat source in the 3D data” (par 48).
Claim 25. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the analyte location map is a heat map based on a concentration gradient of the virtual threat source” (COL 12 lines 3 – 10).
Claim 26. Delamont_2020 makes obvious “wherein the 3D data is a spatial mesh” (par 48; par 65: “… through the use of spatial mapping generated mesh data…”).
Claim 27. Yerli_2019 makes obvious “wherein the presentation module is configured to detect a hand gesture from a user and present a menu to the user to select a virtual threat source configuration” (par 33: “… a user may interact with the real-time 3D virtual replica via the NUI free from artificial constraints… such as through… air gestures (e.g., hand poses and movements and other body/appendage motion/poses…”) Venkatesh_2019 also makes obvious “wherein the presentation module is configured to detect a hand gesture from a user and present a menu to the user to select a virtual threat source configuration” (COL 5 lines 23 – 25: “… input devices (e.g., gesture recognition device…”).
Claim 28. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the virtual threat source configuration includes a threat type, a threat power, a 3D location, a time, or a combination thereof” (FIG. 4 “object type”). Venkatesh_2019 makes obvious “wherein the virtual threat source configuration includes a threat type, a threat power, a 3D location, a time, or a combination thereof” (COL 4 lines 55: “… hazard (e.g., gas concentration… detect different concentrations level of gas… these concentration levels may be mapped…”)
Claim 29. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the virtual threat source configuration includes the threat type and the threat type comprises at least one of a chemical agent, a biological agent, radiological material, and nuclear material” (COL 7 lines 40 – 53: “… the danger setup unit… arbitrary set by an administrator (user)… cement paste…” NOTE: cement past is a chemical agent because it undergoes a direct chemical reaction called hydration).
Claim 32. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the display device comprises at least one of an augmented reality display device and a virtual reality display device” (FIG. 3 “augmented reality processor”; COL 1 lines 50 – 60: “… display a grating of dangerous area or the dangerous object in the augmented reality mode…”).
Claim 33. Yerli_2019 makes obvious “wherein the display device comprises a heads up display” (par 33: “… head-mounted displays… head-up display…”).
Claim 35. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the presentation module is configured to dynamically update the analyte location map on the display device based on the tracked location of the display device” (FIG. 6, 7, 8; COL 1 lines 45: “… location tracking technology…”).
Claim 36. Venkatesh_2019 makes obvious “wherein the presentation module is configured to display the analyte location map on at least two displays based on tracked locations of the at least two display devices” (COL 4 lines 38 – 45: “… in an exemplary embodiment, a plurality of user positions may be indicated on the maps of the workplace. For example, a map showing the location of workers, the floor plan of the workplace, and hazards in the workplace may be displayed to a worker or to a third party (e.g., a supervisor, security personnel, etc…”).
Claim 37. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the controller is included in at least one of the display device, the virtual detector, and a secondary device” (FIG. 2, 3; COL 6 lines 46: “… the server 130 may include a controller…”).
Claim 38. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the display device is in at least one of wired communication and wireless communication with at least one of the controller and the virtual detector” (COL 8 lines 53: “… wired or wireless manner… lines 66: “… Bluetooth…”). Venkatesh_2019 makes obvious “wherein the display device is in at least one of wired communication and wireless communication with at least one of the controller and the virtual detector” (COL 4 lines 4 – 10: “… bluetooth…”).
Claim 39. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the display device is in wireless communication with at least one of the controller and the virtual detector, and the wireless communication comprises Bluetooth” (COL 8 lines 53: “… wired or wireless manner… lines 66: “… Bluetooth…”).
Claim 40. Yerli_2019 makes obvious wherein the presentation module is configured to change the analyte location map based on a hand gesture (par 33: “… a user may interact with the real-time 3D virtual replica via the NUI free from artificial constraints… such as through… air gestures (e.g., hand poses and movements and other body/appendage motion/poses…”) Venkatesh_2019 also makes obvious wherein the presentation module is configured to change the analyte location map based on a hand gesture. (COL 5 lines 23 – 25: “… input devices (e.g., gesture recognition device…”).
Claim 41. Yoo_2021 makes obvious “wherein the analyte location map indicates concentration of the virtual threat source using at least one of a color of an indicator and a height of an indicator” (COL 12 lines 3 – 9: “…. Dangerous area in red, and may display the warning area in yellow…”)
Claims 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo_2021 in view of Venkatesha_2019 in view of Yerli_2019 in view of Delamont_2020 in view of Rezac_2009 (EP 2 053 384 A1).
Claim 30. Rezac_2009 makes obvious “wherein the virtual detector comprises at least one of an
ion mobility spectrometer, a mass spectrometer, a RAMAN spectroscopic device, a raditation decteor, an electrochemical sensor, a chemosensor array, and a photochemical sensor” (abstract: “a Raman spectroscopy sensor…”; par 2: “the danger of exposer to chemical or biological agents can be server… it is desirable to quickly and accurately identify (1) the type of agent that has been released and (2) the precise area of contamination…”).
Yoo_2021 and Rezac_2009 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called hazard detection. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yoo_2021 and Rezac_2009. The rationale for doing so would have been that Yoo_2021 teaches to detect dangers/hazards and Rezac_2009 teaches it is desirable to accurately identify the type of hazardous agent and the amount and teaches to use a RAMAN spectroscopic device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoo_2021 and Rezac_2009 for the benefit of accurately detecting the type and amount of hazardous agents in an area to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo_2021 in view of Venkatesha_2019 in view of Yerli_2019 in view of Delamont_2020 in view of Tancioni_2021 (Gamma dose rate monitoring using a Silicon Photomultiplier-based plastic scintillation detector, 2021).
Claim 31. Tancioni_2021 makes obvious “wherein the virtual threat source is configured as a radiological material and the virtual detector comprises a radiation detector based upon a scintillation material and presence of a silicon photomultiplier” (abstract, introduction).
Yoo_2021 and Tancioni_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called hazard/danger detection. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yoo_2021 and Tancioni_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Yoo_2021 teaches to detect danger. Tancioni_2021 teaches to detect a danger known as gamma radiation and teaches a radiation detector based upon a scintillation material and presence of a silicon photomultiplier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoo_2021 and Tancioni_2021for the benefit of detecting dangers such a gamma radiation to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights