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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of July 9, 2025 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on October 3, 2025 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 13-20. While the status indicator for claim 11 reads "Currently Amended," it does not appear that this claim was amended.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-20 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §112
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
At pages 7-9 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the recited equipment analyzer being configured to analyze features of the operational environment within the images to determine a criterion for equipment to function within the operational environment and a UI configured to receive a user request for repair/replacement information for the identified equipment and present the repair/replacement information as recited in claim 1 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving upon "current technology of an image capture device and user interface by allowing a user to capture images of equipment within an operational environment, and request and receive repair and replacement information for the equipment."
The Examiner initially notes that claim 1 does not recite that the UI is configured to receive a user request for repair/replacement information for the identified equipment as asserted by Applicant. Furthermore, there is no indication that the image capture device and user interface are being used as anything other than a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (e.g., capturing image data and displaying information) (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Still further, an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). In the present case, the features of the image capture device and UI asserted by Applicant as providing the improvement (i.e., allowing a user to capture images of equipment within an operational environment, and receive repair and replacement information for the equipment) are part of the abstract idea (see below rejection) and thus cannot provide an improvement of itself.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §102/103
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the Amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, it appears that "features" should be changed to --the features--.
In claim 14, line 6, it appears that "features" should be changed to --the features--.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-13 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 14-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
an image capture device configured to capture one or more images of equipment within an operational environment;
a communications module;
a display device; and
an equipment analyzer comprising at least one processor and memory configured to:
identify equipment and features of the operational environment within the captured one or more images;
analyze features of the operational environment within the one or more images to determine at least one criterion for equipment to function within the operational environment;
generate a search query that includes the at least one determined criterion and transmit the generated search query via the communications module to one or more databases;
obtain search results from the one or more databases, the search results responsive to the search query and including repair and replacement information; and
control the display device to present a user interface that includes the repair and replacement information.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). As an example, a person (e.g., technician) could practically in their mind with pen and paper identify equipment (e.g., washing machine) and features of an environment (e.g., laundry room) within an image, analyze the environmental features to determine a criterion for the equipment to function in the environment (e.g., width of 30" or less and depth of 30" or less based on location in laundry room), generate a search query based on the features (e.g., washing machines having a width and depth of less than 30"), obtain search results based on the query and present the repair/replacement information (reviewing a website or other literature and determining and writing down matching washing machines and/or repair parts).
These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Claims directed to “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’’ are abstract. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 15, and 17-19 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claims 2 and 15 call for classifying the equipment/operational environment and then searching the databases for repair/replacement information based on the classification which a person could practically perform in their mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 3 recites how the images include a plurality of images captured of the equipment and the operational environment from different perspectives which just further defines the abstract idea ("mental processes") discussed above.
-Claims 6-8 and 17-19 call for determining a class of the equipment; determining at least one other criterion (e.g., size, shape, technical specification) for equipment within the class to function within the operational environment; searching the one or more databases for repair and replacement information based on the at least one other criterion, and presenting the other criterion all of which a person could practically perform in their mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 9 calls for presenting information about steps for repairing and/or replacing the equipment within the operational environment which a person could practically perform in their mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 11 calls for presenting a plurality of repair and replacement options which a person could practically perform in their mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system comprising:
an image capture device configured to capture one or more images of equipment within an operational environment (using computers as tools to perform an existing process at such high level of generality, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a communications module (using computers as tools to perform an existing process at such high level of generality, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a display device (using computers as tools to perform an existing process at such high level of generality, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
an equipment analyzer comprising at least one processor and memory configured to (using computers as tools to perform an existing process at such high level of generality, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
identify equipment and features of the operational environment within the captured one or more images;
analyze features of the operational environment within the one or more images to determine at least one criterion for equipment to function within the operational environment;
generate a search query that includes the at least one determined criterion and transmit the generated search query via the communications module to one or more databases (using computers as tools to perform an existing process at such high level of generality, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); extra-solution activity (transmitting/receiving data) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
obtain search results from the one or more databases (using computers as tools to perform an existing process at such high level of generality, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); extra-solution activity (transmitting/receiving data) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the search results responsive to the search query and including repair and replacement information; and
control the display device to present a user interface that includes (using computers as tools to perform an existing process at such high level of generality, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) the repair and replacement information.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the system including image capture device, communications module, display device, equipment analyzer including processor and memory, and user interface, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding transmitting the search query and obtaining search results from one or more databases, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; transmitting/receiving data) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 14 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 14 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 4 and 16 call for reading machine-readable code in the images to identify the equipment and/or parts of the equipment which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 recites how the equipment includes an electronic device, a household appliance, a part of an electronic device, or a part of a household appliance which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 recites how the other criterion is presented via the user interface which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9 now recites how the repair/replacement information is presented "via the user interface" which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10 calls for using the user interface to: receive user input that identifies the equipment and/or environment which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 recites how the repair/replacement options are presented via the user interface which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims 12 and 20 call for utilizing a computer vision technique and/or an augmented reality technique for identifying the equipment and/or the operational environment which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13 calls for communicating one or more identifiers of the equipment and operational environment to at least one computing device; and communicating, to the at least one computing device, a request for the repair and replacement information which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the system including image capture device, communications module, display device, equipment analyzer including processor and memory, user interface, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to transmitting the search query and obtaining search results from one or more databases which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as discussed above, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 16 call for reading machine-readable code in the images to identify the equipment and/or parts of the equipment which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 recites how the equipment includes an electronic device, a household appliance, a part of an electronic device, or a part of a household appliance which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 recites how the other criterion is presented via the user interface which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9 now recites how the repair/replacement information is presented "via the user interface" which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10 calls for using the user interface to receive user input that identifies the equipment and/or environment which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 11 recites how the repair/replacement options are presented via the user interface which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims 12 and 20 call for utilizing a computer vision technique and/or an augmented reality technique for identifying the equipment and/or the operational environment which just amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13 calls for communicating one or more identifiers of the equipment and operational environment to at least one computing device; and communicating, to the at least one computing device, a request for the repair and replacement information which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0334812 to Terczynski et al. ("Terczynski") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0258144 to Chaturvedi et al. ("Chaturvedi"):
Regarding claim 1, Terczynski discloses a system (system 100 in Figure 1) comprising:
an image capture device (camera component 122 of mobile device 120) configured to capture one or more images of equipment (camera component 122 captures images 125 of object 114 per Figure 1, [0026]-[0027], and step 510 of Figure 5, where the object can be e.g., a furnace ([0047]), TV ([0049]), window screen ([0035]), etc. "equipment") within an operational environment (physical environment 110 in Figure 1);
a communications module (mobile device 120 can communicate over a network per [0025], [0043], [0067] which would require a "communications module");
a display device (display 121);
an equipment analyzer comprising at least one processor and memory configured to (mobile device 120 executes object report software 124 per Figure 1 and can be a smartphone per [0025] which necessarily includes a processor and memory (an "equipment analyzer")):
identify equipment and features of the operational environment within the captured one or more images ([0028]-[0031] discloses how the object report software 124 of mobile device 120 identifies the object of interest (the "equipment" as noted above) and the orientation of the object and type of physical environment ("features of the operational environment") in the image frames);
analyze features of the operational environment within the one or more images to determine at least one criterion for equipment to function within the operational environment ([0035] discusses measuring a size of a window screen (equipment) which is necessarily a "criterion" for the screen/equipment to function within the physical/operational environment 110 of Figure 1 (e.g., a larger or smaller screen would not properly fit into a corresponding window in the environment
…
generate a search query … and transmit the generated search query via the communications module to one or more databases ([0040]-[0041] discloses how the mobile device 120 sends/transmits object (equipment) information to server 120 (which would be via a "communications module" as noted above) in the form of a query ([0043]) to conduct a search of maintenance (repair) and replacement information for the object/equipment from a database);
obtain search results from the one or more databases, the search results responsive to the search query and including repair and replacement information ([0040]-[0041] discusses retrieving the repair/replacement information from the database based on the query); and
control the display device to present a user interface that includes the repair and replacement information ([0042] discloses how the server 130 transmits object report data (the maintenance (repair) and replacement information for the object/equipment per [0041]) back to the mobile device which displays it on user interface of display 121; e.g., see Figure 3).
However, Terczynski might be silent regarding analyze features of the operational environment within the one or more images to determine at least one criterion for equipment to function within the operational environment, where the generated search query includes the at least one determined criterion.
Nevertheless, Chaturvedi teaches ([0086]-[0094] and Figures 2-5B) that it was known in the product/equipment repair/replacement art to analyze and measure planes, surfaces, shapes, depth, etc. (features) in a curated environment (operational environment) to determine 3D coordinates, calculate area and volume (criteria) of an available space for items/products/equipment (i.e., so that the items/products/equipment can function within the operational environment), determine items that fit the available spaces which would necessarily be via search system 320 (Figure 3 and [0058]) generating a query including the area/volume of the available space to search database 322 for available items/products/equipment, and displaying the items in a UI (e.g., Figures 4A-4E). This arrangement advantageously generates more focused searches by only returning items that would actually fit in a particular space in the environment thereby improving item/equipment searching functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined at least one criterion for equipment to function within the operational environment such that the generated search query includes the at least one determined criterion in the system of Terczynski as taught by Chaturvedi to advantageously generate more focused searches by only returning items that would actually fit in a particular space in the environment thereby improving searching functionality. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 2, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the equipment analyzer is configured to classify the equipment and the operational environment ([0029]-[0035] of Terczynski discuss classifying the type of object (equipment) and physical (operational) environment), and search the one or more databases for repair and replacement information based on the classification of the equipment and/or the operational environment (([0040]-[0041] of Terczynski discloses how the mobile device 120 sends object (equipment) information (which includes the object classification per [0029]-[0035] of Terczynski) to server 120 in the form of a query ([0043] of Terczynski) to conduct a search of maintenance (repair) and replacement information for the object/equipment)).
Regarding claim 3, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the one or more images comprises a plurality of images captured of the equipment and the operational environment from different perspectives ([0026], [0028] of Terczynski discloses capturing a plurality of image frames of the object/equipment and physical/operational environment while [0044] discloses how the mobile device can be moved while video is being captured (which includes a plurality of image frames such that the images of the equipment (one or more objects) and the physical/operational environment are captured from different perspectives).
Regarding claim 5, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the equipment comprises an electronic device, a household appliance, a part of an electronic device, or a part of a household appliance ([0049] of Terczynski discloses a TV (electronic device) and [0047] of Terczynski discloses a furnace (appliance)).
Regarding claim 6, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the equipment analyzer is configured to:
determine a class of the equipment ([0029]-[0034] of Terczynski discloses classifying the objects (where the object can be e.g., a furnace ([0047] of Terczynski), TV ([0049] of Terczynski), window screen ([0035] of Terczynski), etc. "equipment"));
determine at least one other criterion for equipment within the class to function within the operational environment ([0035] of Terczynski discusses measuring a size of a window screen (equipment) which is necessarily a "criterion" for the screen/equipment to function within the physical/operational environment 110 of Figure 1 (e.g., a larger or smaller screen would not properly fit into a corresponding window in the environment)); and
search the one or more databases for repair and replacement information based on the at least one other criterion ([0040]-[0041] of Terczynski discloses how the mobile device 120 sends object (equipment) information (which includes the size criterion) to server 120 in the form of a query ([0043] of Terczynski) to conduct a search of maintenance (repair) and replacement information for the object/equipment; also see [0048] which discusses obtaining maintenance/repair/replacement information for the window screen based on the size criterion).
Regarding claim 7, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 6, further including wherein the at least one other criterion includes one or more of a size, shape, and/or technical specification ([0035] and [0040] of Terczynski disclose a size criterion).
Regarding claim 8, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 6, further including wherein the equipment analyzer is configured to present the at least one other criterion via the user interface ([0041]-[0042], [0060] of Terczynski discloses how the object report can include the size of the object (size criterion) and how the object report can be displayed on the user interface of the display).
Regarding claim 9, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the equipment analyzer is configured to present, via the user interface, information about steps for repairing and/or replacing the equipment within the operational environment ([0042], [0044], [0047], [0048], and Figure 3 of Terczynski discuss/illustrate presenting/displaying information regarding steps for repairing/replacing the equipment (which is within the physical/operational environment per Figure 1) via the UI).
Regarding claim 11, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the equipment analyzer is configured to present, via the user interface, a plurality of repair and replacement options ([0021] and [0041] of Terczynski discloses how the object report module 132 obtains maintenance/repair plan and replacement information (plurality of repair and replacement options) from object report database 134 and sends a report including the same back to the mobile device 120 which is then displayed on the UI of the display 121 of the mobile device 120; also see [0036] which discloses replacement options; also see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the equipment analyzer is configured to utilize a computer vision technique and/or an augmented reality technique for identifying the equipment and/or the operational environment (the camera component 122 of the mobile device 120 of Terczynski uses image capture (computer vision technique) to obtain images of the objects and environment because that is what cameras do; also, [0044] of Terczynski discloses using AR to identify other objects).
Regarding claim 13, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the equipment analyzer is configured to:
communicate one or more identifiers of the equipment and/or operational environment to at least one computing device ([0040] of Terczynski discloses send object information/identifiers to server 130 (computing device)); and
communicate, to the at least one computing device, a request for the repair and replacement information ([0043] of Terczynski discloses how the mobile device 120 can make queries to the server 130 for maintenance information (request for repair information)).
Claims 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected in view of the Terczynski/Chaturvedi combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 12.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0334812 to Terczynski et al. ("Terczynski") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0258144 to Chaturvedi et al. ("Chaturvedi"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub No. 2021/0398054 to Jaggers et al. ("Jaggers"):
Regarding claim 4, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the captured one or more images include [information] that identifies the equipment, and wherein the equipment analyzer reads the [information] to identify the equipment and/or one or more parts of the equipment ([0034] of Terczynski discloses how the object report software 124 of the mobile device 120 can read text on the object/equipment in the images to identify the object/equipment).
However, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi might be silent regarding the information specifically being machine-readable code.
Nevertheless, Jaggers teaches ([0140], [0160]) that it was known in the equipment repair and servicing art to obtain information regarding equipment (e.g., to identify the equipment, to obtain repair information, etc.) via capturing an image of a barcode, QR code, etc. ("machine-readable code") as it is a common manner of obtaining system information regarding a device or system (e.g., HVAC, dishwasher, etc.) in an efficient manner to facilitate repair/servicing thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the captured images of the Terczynski/Chaturvedi to include machine-readable code that identifies the equipment to for the equipment analyzer of Terczynski to read the machine-readable code to identify the equipment and/or parts of the equipment as taught by Jaggers to advantageously obtain system information regarding the equipment (e.g., identify the equipment, repair information for the equipment, etc.) in a known, efficient manner to facilitate repair/servicing thereof. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 16 is rejected in view of the Terczynski/Chaturvedi/Jaggers combination as discussed above in relation to claim 4.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0334812 to Terczynski et al. ("Terczynski") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0258144 to Chaturvedi et al. ("Chaturvedi"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0293778 to Elliot et al. ("Elliot"):
Regarding claim 10, the Terczynski/Chaturvedi discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the equipment analyzer is configured to use the user interface to:
…; and
receive a user request for the repair and replacement information for the equipment ([0020] of Terczynski discloses how the mobile device can display an option for a user to select to receive more information about the object of interest; for instance, items 328, 338 in Figure 3 illustrate options to receive replacement information while items 350 illustrates an option to receive repair information regarding professionals, also see [0042]-[0043] of Terczynski).
However, Terczynski appears to be silent regarding receive user input that identifies the equipment and/or environment.
Nevertheless, Elliot teaches that it was known in the equipment repair/maintenance art to use object recognition software to identify objects in image/video data ([0029]), receive a user confirmation of the identified objects ([0039], which would be via some user interface as the invention is computer-implemented with reference to the figures) and obtain and display repair/replacement information for the object ([0052]) which advantageously allows for updating of a global dataset and improved accuracy of automatic object detection in image and video data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the equipment analyzer of the Terczynski/Chaturvedi to receive user input (e.g., a confirmation) that identifies the equipment as taught by Elliot to advantageously allow for updating of a global dataset and improved accuracy of automatic object detection in image and video data. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686