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 . 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 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 13 were amended. Claim 2 was canceled. Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-15 are pending in the application.
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, 5-6, 9-10, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meerbeek et al. (US 2021/0150816) in view of Strauss (US 2014/0229874) and Hammad et al. (US 2005/0086093).
Regarding claim 1, Meerbeek teaches/suggests: A method for displaying devices located in an enclosure on an output device of a user, the method comprising:
maintaining an object model comprising representations of the devices located and/or equipped in the enclosure (Meerbeek [0056] “A BIM may range from an empty room with only walls/doors/windows in the proper location to images that also contain more details like the furniture and installed lighting/sensors” [0058] “the sensor is preferably added to a 3D model (e.g. BIM) of at least part of a building of which the image captures at least a portion”),
wherein the devices comprise one or more assets from the group consisting of: controllers, sensors, and
operating a 3D engine to display a user defined area of the enclosure on the output device (Meerbeek [0051]-[0052] “the camera 4 may be part of an (other) mobile or wearable device of the user … obtaining an image captured with a camera … displaying the image and virtual representations of the sensor and the detection zone superimposed over the image” [0056] “If the augmented reality user interface is realized on augmented reality glasses, then information will typically be superimposed over 3D images” [The user capturing the image of the area to be augmented meets the user defined area.]);
Meerbeek is silent regarding activators. Strauss, however, teaches/suggests activators (Strauss [0005] “where devices comprise sensors, actuators, air handlers, chillers, steam plants, security systems, smoke detectors and lighting systems”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assets of Meerbeek to include the activators of Strauss for activation.
Meerbeek as modified by Strauss does not teach/suggest selected by the user. Nor does Meerbeek as modified by Strauss teach/suggest:
displaying the selected devices located and/or equipped in the user defined area on the output device.
Hammad, however, teaches/suggests selected by the user (Hammad [0069] “the user may choose to display on the floor plan selected types of assets”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assets of Meerbeek as modified by Strauss to be selected as taught/suggested by Hammad for display. As such, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad teaches/suggests:
displaying the selected devices located and/or equipped in the user defined area on the output device (Meerbeek [0052] “displaying the image and virtual representations of the sensor and the detection zone superimposed over the image” Hammad [0017] “The association of indicators representing particular types of asset into groups for selective display allows different types of asset to be displayed on the floor plan individually, all at the same time, or in selected combinations”).
Regarding claim 5, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying all devices located in the user defined area of the enclosure in correlation with a device selected by the user on the output device (Meerbeek [0052] “displaying the image and virtual representations of the sensor and the detection zone superimposed over the image” Hammad [0017] “The association of indicators representing particular types of asset into groups for selective display allows different types of asset to be displayed on the floor plan individually, all at the same time, or in selected combinations”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 5, further comprising displaying user selectable types of correlation on the output device (Hammad [0069] “the user may choose to display on the floor plan selected types of assets”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein the output device comprises a smartphone, and/or a tablet computer, and/or AR-glasses (Meerbeek [0051] “the electronic device of the invention may be a mobile phone, augmented reality glasses”).
Regarding claim 10, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein the object model comprises a building information model (BIM) and/or a CAD model and/or a UNITY-based rendered model (Meerbeek [0056] “a Building Information Model (BIM) may be constructed from these captured 3D images”).
Claims 13 and 15-16 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1 and 5-6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad further teaches/suggests a processor (Meerbeek Fig. 1: processor 3).
Claim(s) 3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meerbeek et al. (US 2021/0150816) in view of Strauss (US 2014/0229874) and Hammad et al. (US 2005/0086093) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stokking et al. (US 2021/0209855).
Regarding claim 3, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad does not teach/suggest: The method according claim 1, further comprising displaying the user defined area on the output device as a sphere or a cube or a cuboid. Stokking, however, teaches/suggests a sphere (Stokking [0223] “The processor system 545 of the local user may then render the virtual reality environment by inserting an avatar representing the remote user 500 in the virtual reality environment and projecting the imaged scene onto a sphere surrounding the avatar, thereby establishing a ‘backdrop’ for the VR session”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the augmented image of Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad to be projected onto a sphere as taught/suggested by Stokking to establish a backdrop for a VR session.
As such, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss, Hammad, and Stokking teaches/suggests displaying the user defined area on the output device as a sphere or a cube or a cuboid (Meerbeek [0052] “displaying the image and virtual representations of the sensor and the detection zone superimposed over the image” Stokking [0223] “The processor system 545 of the local user may then render the virtual reality environment by inserting an avatar representing the remote user 500 in the virtual reality environment and projecting the imaged scene onto a sphere surrounding the avatar, thereby establishing a ‘backdrop’ for the VR session”).
Regarding claim 7, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad does not teach/suggest: The method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying the user on the output device as a pointer positioned on a current position of the user in the user defined area of the enclosure. Stokking, however, teaches/suggests displaying the user on the output device as a pointer positioned on a current position of the user in the user defined area of the enclosure (Stokking [0223] “The processor system 545 of the local user may then render the virtual reality environment by inserting an avatar representing the remote user 500 in the virtual reality environment and projecting the imaged scene onto a sphere surrounding the avatar” [0155] “the user may also be able to move around in the virtual environment”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the augmented image of Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad to include the avatar (the pointer) of Stokking to move around a room remotely.
Regarding claim 8, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss, Hammad, and Stokking teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 7, further comprising keeping the pointer on track and synchronized with the position of the user by scanning landmark codes attached in the enclosure and/or by radio and/or audio and/or camera means of the output device (Stokking [0155] “The field of view of the camera 310 may correspond to the field of view shown to the user, e.g., using an HMD … the user may also be able to move around in the virtual environment, e.g., based on additional input … by so-called 6-DoF tracking of the user head or HMD”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meerbeek et al. (US 2021/0150816) in view of Strauss (US 2014/0229874) and Hammad et al. (US 2005/0086093) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delfino et al. (US 2021/0200421).
Regarding claim 4, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad teaches/suggests a device selected by the user (Hammad [0069] “the user may choose to display on the floor plan selected types of assets”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad does not teach/suggest: The method according to claim 1, further comprising using a device selected by the user as the center point of the user defined area of the enclosure. Delfino, however, teaches/suggests the center point (Delfino [0051] “Once selected, the camera is positioned on the plane of the locked viewpoint of the 3D scene so that the first 3D view displays the target object in the centre of the 3D scene”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the selected asset of Meerbeek as modified by Strauss and Hammad to be displayed in the center of the display as taught/suggested by Delfino for focus.
As such, Meerbeek as modified by Strauss, Hammad, and Delfino teaches/suggests using a device selected by the user as the center point of the user defined area of the enclosure (Meerbeek [0052] “displaying the image and virtual representations of the sensor and the detection zone superimposed over the image” Hammad [0069] “the user may choose to display on the floor plan selected types of assets” Delfino [0051] “Once selected, the camera is positioned on the plane of the locked viewpoint of the 3D scene so that the first 3D view displays the target object in the centre of the 3D scene”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2008/0077512 – asset management
US 2018/0011461 – asset management
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 ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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 CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights