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 .
The preliminary amendment dated 3/07/2024 has been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s election of Species II in the reply filed on 8/05/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The application has pending claims 1-15 (non-elected claims 3-5 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because paragraph [0013] states “FIGS. 2A and 2B” but the drawings depict “FIG. 2” with two diagrams (a) and (b); and similarly paragraph [0013] also states “FIGS. 24A and 24B …; FIG. 24C” but the drawings depict “FIG. 24” with three diagrams (a), (b), and (c).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not limited to a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, line 3: The -- CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS -- section must be included in the specification above the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” section to inform of any related applications, in this case the Foreign application JAPAN 2023-166364 09/27/2023.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 9: “in the same” should be -- in a same --.
Claim 10 and also 11-14 respectively: The claim limitation “the electrical equipment state monitoring system” at lines 10-11 and 17-18 of claim 10 are inconsistent with line 1’s “A monitoring system”. “A monitoring system” at line 1 of claim 10 therefore is suggested to be -- An electrical equipment state monitoring system --. Further, each instance of “monitoring system” is suggested to be -- electrical equipment state monitoring system -- in each of dependent claims 11-14 as well.
Claim 10 at line 3: “including the electrical” should be -- including electrical --.
Claim 10 at line 8: “in the same” should be -- in a same --.
Claim 12 at line 3: “on the same” should be -- on a same --.
Claim 15 at lines 8-9: “in the same” should be -- in a same --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 recites the claim language “based on at least one of a voltage, a current, and a power”. The Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) decision regarding the claim interpretation of “at least one of x, y, and z.” at pages 15-16 set forth the rationale for determining that the term “and” is conjunctive (i.e. at least one of x, at least one of y, and at least one of z). Therefore the plain meaning of the current claim language “based on at least one of a voltage, a current, and a power” in light of the specification is interpreted to be “based on at least one of a voltage, at least one of a current, and at least one of a power”. Also see MPEP 2111.01 on the subject of Plain Meaning given to claim terms.
Similar discussions are addressed with regard to claim 10’s limitation “at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field” at lines 22-23 respectively.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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”) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a reception unit that receives …; a data superimposing unit that superimposes …; and a superimposed data output unit that outputs …” as recited in claim 1; “a state determination unit that determines …” as recited in claim 2; “a difference calculation unit that calculates …” as recited in claim 9; “a reception unit that receives …; a data superimposing unit that superimposes …; and a superimposing data output unit that outputs …; a three-dimensional space information measurement device that measures …; an electromagnetic field measurement device that measures … a three-dimensional coordinate measurement device that measures … a clocking unit that performs time synchronization …” as recited in claim 10; “a visualization unit that inputs …” as recited in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claim 7 at lines 3-4: The claim limitation “determines the state of the electrical equipment based on at least one of voltage, a current, and a power of the electrical equipment obtained by adding the information on the distance” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by such a limitation and thereby the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. It is further noted that the specification provides no further clarification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the system of independent claim 1 and similarly the system claim 10 and method claim 15 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to “receiving inputs of three-dimensional space information about an area including the electrical equipment and electromagnetic field data including electromagnetic field information regarding an intensity of an electromagnetic field derived from the electrical equipment and three-dimensional coordinates of a point where the electromagnetic field information is acquired; superimposing the three-dimensional space information and the electromagnetic field data in the same space based on the three-dimensional coordinates to generate superimposed data; and outputting the superimposed data.”.
The above limitations of “superimposing the three-dimensional space information and the electromagnetic field data in the same space based on the three-dimensional coordinates to generate superimposed data” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in each of the independent claims are the elements of “receiving inputs of three-dimensional space information about an area including the electrical equipment and electromagnetic field data including electromagnetic field information regarding an intensity of an electromagnetic field derived from the electrical equipment and three-dimensional coordinates of a point where the electromagnetic field information is acquired” and “outputting the superimposed data”. The additional elements recited in independent claim 15 are the elements of “a processor executing a program recorded in a memory”. The additional elements recited in independent claim 10 are the elements of “a reception unit … a data superimposing unit … a superimposed data output unit …” [similarly in independent claim 1] and “a three-dimensional space information measurement device that measures the three-dimensional space information; an electromagnetic field measurement device that measures the electromagnetic field information in association with the three-dimensional coordinates of the point; and a display device that displays data superimposed by the electrical equipment state monitoring system, wherein the electromagnetic field measurement device includes a three-dimensional coordinate measurement device that measures the three-dimensional coordinates, an electromagnetic field sensor that measures at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field as the electromagnetic field information, and a clocking unit that performs time synchronization of data output from the electromagnetic field sensor with the measurement of the three-dimensional coordinates”.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps “receiving inputs of three-dimensional space information about an area including the electrical equipment and electromagnetic field data including electromagnetic field information regarding an intensity of an electromagnetic field derived from the electrical equipment and three-dimensional coordinates of a point where the electromagnetic field information is acquired”, “outputting the superimposed data”, and “a three-dimensional space information measurement device that measures the three-dimensional space information; an electromagnetic field measurement device that measures the electromagnetic field information in association with the three-dimensional coordinates of the point; and a display device that displays data superimposed by the electrical equipment state monitoring system, wherein the electromagnetic field measurement device includes a three-dimensional coordinate measurement device that measures the three-dimensional coordinates, an electromagnetic field sensor that measures at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field as the electromagnetic field information, and a clocking unit that performs time synchronization of data output from the electromagnetic field sensor with the measurement of the three-dimensional coordinates” merely constitutes activity involving data gathering and outputting. Such extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
The other additional elements “a processor executing a program recorded in a memory” and “a reception unit … a data superimposing unit … a superimposed data output unit …” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the steps of “receiving inputs of three-dimensional space information about an area including the electrical equipment and electromagnetic field data including electromagnetic field information regarding an intensity of an electromagnetic field derived from the electrical equipment and three-dimensional coordinates of a point where the electromagnetic field information is acquired”, “outputting the superimposed data”, and “a three-dimensional space information measurement device that measures the three-dimensional space information; an electromagnetic field measurement device that measures the electromagnetic field information in association with the three-dimensional coordinates of the point; and a display device that displays data superimposed by the electrical equipment state monitoring system, wherein the electromagnetic field measurement device includes a three-dimensional coordinate measurement device that measures the three-dimensional coordinates, an electromagnetic field sensor that measures at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field as the electromagnetic field information, and a clocking unit that performs time synchronization of data output from the electromagnetic field sensor with the measurement of the three-dimensional coordinates” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed data gathering and outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The other additional elements “a processor executing a program recorded in a memory” and “a reception unit … a data superimposing unit … a superimposed data output unit …” are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 10, and 15 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2, 6-7, 9, and 11-14:
Claims 2, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 are dependent on corresponding independent claims 1, 10, and 15 respectively and therefore include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1, 10, and 15. Thus claims 2, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 recite “Mental Processes”. Further, claims 2, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 further describe:
Dependent claim 2 merely describes “determines a state of the electrical equipment … wherein … superimposes information on the state of the electrical equipment …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 6 merely describes (i) “calculating a distance between the electrical equipment and the point …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships and calculations which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more, and (ii) “determines the state of the electrical equipment further based on information on the distance …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 7 merely describes “determines the state of the electrical equipment based on at least one of a voltage, a current, and a power ...” which due to their broad generality are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 9 merely describes (i) “calculates a distance between a plurality of pieces of three-dimensional space information …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships and calculations which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more, and (ii) “… outputs …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity [data outputting] and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 11-14 merely describes “… measurement … sensor …”, “measurement … measurement … mounted …”, “displays …”, “visualizes …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity [data gathering and outputting] and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, claims 2, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagitani (US 2011/0273559 A1, provided by Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement IDS).
Claim 1: Yagitani discloses an electrical equipment state monitoring system for monitoring a state of electrical equipment (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0095]-[0107]), the electrical equipment state monitoring system comprising: a reception unit that receives inputs of three-dimensional space information about an area including the electrical equipment and electromagnetic field data including electromagnetic field information regarding an intensity of an electromagnetic field derived from the electrical equipment and three-dimensional coordinates of a point where the electromagnetic field information is acquired (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3, 4B, and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0095]-[0107]); a data superimposing unit that superimposes the three-dimensional space information and the electromagnetic field data in the same space based on the three-dimensional coordinates to generate superimposed data (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0095]-[0107], superimposed); and a superimposed data output unit that outputs the superimposed data from the electrical equipment state monitoring system (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0095]-[0107], visualization display displaying the superimposed data).
Although different embodiments of Yagitani have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yagitani by combining Yagitani’s similar embodiments in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], [0095]-[0107], [0125]).
Claim 2: Yagitani further discloses a state determination unit that determines a state of the electrical equipment based on the electromagnetic field data, wherein the data superimposing unit further superimposes information on the state of the electrical equipment (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3, 4B, and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0095]-[0107], voltage values Vx, Vy, Vz).
Claim 9: Yagitani further discloses a difference calculation unit that calculates a difference between a plurality of pieces of three-dimensional space information, wherein when the difference is larger than a predetermined threshold, the reception unit outputs the three-dimensional space information to the data superimposing unit (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3, 4B, and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0095]-[0107], claim 7, detect and output the voltage intensity Vx, Vy, and Vz every time a predetermined time elapses [e.g. every time a determined difference in time is larger than a predetermined elapsed time threshold respectively]).
Claim 10: The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1 respectively. Further, Yagitani further discloses a three-dimensional space information measurement device that measures the three-dimensional space information (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3, 4B, and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0066]-[0069], [0095]-[0107]); an electromagnetic field measurement device that measures the electromagnetic field information in association with the three-dimensional coordinates of the point (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3, 4B, and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0066]-[0069], [0095]-[0107]); and a display device that displays data superimposed by the electrical equipment state monitoring system (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0066]-[0069], [0095]-[0107], visualization display displaying the superimposed data), wherein the electromagnetic field measurement device includes a three-dimensional coordinate measurement device that measures the three-dimensional coordinates, an electromagnetic field sensor that measures at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field as the electromagnetic field information (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0066]-[0069], [0095]-[0107]), and a clocking unit that performs time synchronization of data output from the electromagnetic field sensor with the measurement of the three-dimensional coordinates (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0021], [0066]-[0069], [0095]-[0107], [0120], in real time: e.g. the three-dimensional location is displayed with a color overwritten corresponding to the electromagnetic intensities at each current time).
Claim 11: Yagitani further discloses wherein a measurement timing of the three-dimensional coordinate measurement device and the electromagnetic field sensor is controlled based on a time measured by the clocking unit (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0021], [0066]-[0069], [0095]-[0107], [0120], in real time: e.g. the three-dimensional location is displayed with a color overwritten corresponding to the electromagnetic intensities at each current time).
Claim 12: Yagitani further disclose wherein the three-dimensional space information measurement device and the electromagnetic field measurement device are mounted on the same moving object (see Yagitani, Figs. 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0066]-[0069], [0095]-[0107], and more specifically Figs. 2-3, 4B, and [0120]-[0121]).
Claim 14: Yagitani further discloses a visualization unit that inputs data superimposed by the electrical equipment state monitoring system and visualizes at least a part of a monitoring target area in a virtual three-dimensional space by the three-dimensional space information and the electromagnetic field data (see Yagitani, Figs. 2-3 and 9-12, [0026], computer implemented, [0095]-[0107], visualization display displaying the superimposed data on the virtual three-dimensional space).
As to claim 15, the claim is the corresponding method claim to claim 1 respectively. The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagitani in view of Ishida et al (US 2015/0029190 A1). The teachings of Yagitani have been discussed above.
Claim 6: However Yagitani fails to explicitly disclose where Ishida discloses wherein the state determination unit calculates a distance between the electrical equipment and the point based on the three-dimensional space information and the three-dimensional coordinates, and determines the state of the electrical equipment further based on information on the distance (see Ishida, [0050], [0111]-[0112], [0159], [0177]-[0179], and more specifically [0088]-[0090], [0128]-[0131], [0260]-[0261], displaying state with a single distance or a distance range).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yagitani’s system using Ishida’s teachings by including the distance processing to Yagitani’s visualization process in order to improve the user interface and experience when performing the electromagnetic field intensity measurements (see Ishida, [0050], [0111]-[0112], [0159], [0177]-[0179], and more specifically [0088]-[0090], [0128]-[0131], [0260]-[0261]).
Claim 13: However Yagitani fails to explicitly disclose where Ishida discloses wherein the display device is carried by a worker who measures the electromagnetic field data, and the display device displays an instruction for measurement by an operator who has viewed the superimposed data (see Ishida, [0050], [0111]-[0112], [0159], [0177]-[0179]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yagitani’s system using Ishida’s teachings by including the measurer / operator process to Yagitani’s (see Yagitani, [0111]) user process in order to improve the user interface and experience when performing the electromagnetic field intensity measurements (see Ishida, [0050], [0111]-[0112], [0159], [0177]-[0179]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mamimura et al ‘479 discloses the image information of the measurement region and the electromagnetic field distribution map can be displayed in parallel on the display device, or the electromagnetic field distribution map can be displayed superimposed on the video information of the measurement region; Tsukamoto et al ‘032 discloses superimposing an electromagnetic field intensity distribution map by electromagnetic waves radiated from a substrate and image data of the substrate on a display; Ohmae et al ‘850 and ‘230 discloses an electromagnetic field map, color display of which is changed according to the intensity of the detection signal, may be shown on the camera image, and wherein when the intensity of the detection signal is equal to or larger than a predetermined value, position information corresponding to the sensor having the intensity of the detection signal equal to or larger than the predetermined value may be superimposed on the image of the measurement target photographed by the camera unit and displayed; Kanetani et al ‘181 discloses generating an electromagnetic interference area display image colored for each band, and a display unit for displaying the electromagnetic interference area display image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights