DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Amendment, filed on 02/16/2026.
This action is made FINAL.
2. Claims 16-35 are pending in the case. Claims 16, 27 and 35 are independent claims. No claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Claims 16, 27 and 35) Dobbins fails to disclose “testing an installation or removal of at least one component within an installation environment that includes real and virtual elements”.
In response, Dobbins discloses (abstract) providing a collaborative visualization system for the purpose of, for example, virtual training on a task. Dobbins discloses (Para 11) tracking movements and interactions of objects, including tools and props, e.g. components, used by a user. For example, a user can be viewed within a simulation performing the routine maintenance operations on an aircraft (Para 12). Thus, a user performing aircraft maintenance tasks, which inherently involves parts replacement, e.g. installation and removal, corresponds to testing installation or removal of at least one component. Therefore, Dobbins discloses “testing an installation or removal of at least one component within an installation environment that includes real and virtual elements”.
Applicant argues (Claims 16, 27 and 35) Dobbins fails to disclose "calibrating, by the computer system, the at least one component, the installation environment with the real elements, at least one hand, and a mixed reality system."
In response, Dobbins discloses a system, for a user performing aircraft maintenance tasks, which inherently involves parts replacement, e.g. installation and removal (Para 12), tracking user motion, e.g. body/hand motion (Fig. 10), the modeled environment and user viewpoints corresponding to head mounted display (HMD) movement (Para 41), and tracking object interaction (Para 43). The “tracking” of Dobbins corresponds to “calibrating” as the tracking updates the change in position data for each of the object, the HMD, the user hand, and the environment relative to one another to provide an accurate 3D simulation (Para 36). Therefore, Dobbins discloses "calibrating, by the computer system, the at least one component, the installation environment with the real elements, at least one hand, and a mixed reality system."
Applicant argues (Claims 16, 27 and 35) Dobbins fails to disclose "tracking, by the computer system, the at least one component, the hand, and the mixed reality system during an attempted installation or removal of the at least one component."
In response, Dobbins discloses (abstract) providing a collaborative visualization system for the purpose of, for example, virtual training on a task. Dobbins discloses (Para 11) tracking movements and interactions of objects, including tools and props, e.g. components, used by a user. For example, a user can be viewed within a simulation performing the routine maintenance operations on an aircraft (Para 12). Thus, a user in a training simulation performing aircraft maintenance tasks, which inherently involves parts replacement, e.g. installation and removal, corresponds to tracking installation or removal of at least one component. Therefore, Dobbins discloses “tracking, by the computer system, the at least one component, the hand, and the mixed reality system during an attempted installation or removal of the at least one component."
Applicant argues (Claims 16, 27 and 35) Dobbins fails to disclose "visualizing, by the computer system, the attempted installation or removal of the at least one component using the mixed reality system."
In response, Dobbins discloses (abstract) providing a collaborative visualization system for the purpose of, for example, virtual training on a task. Dobbins discloses (Para 11) tracking movements and interactions of objects, including tools and props, e.g. components, used by a user. For example, a user can be viewed within a simulation performing the routine maintenance operations on an aircraft (Para 12). Thus, a user in a collaborative visualization system performing aircraft maintenance tasks, which inherently involves parts replacement, e.g. installation and removal, corresponds to visualizing installation or removal of at least one component. Therefore, Dobbins discloses “visualizing, by the computer system, the attempted installation or removal of the at least one component using the mixed reality system."
Applicant argues (claim 18) Dobbins fails to disclose “calibrating and tracking, y the computer system, at least one tool”.
In response, the above rationale as applied to Applicant’s arguments of claim 16 apply herein.
To the extent that the response to the applicant's arguments may have mentioned new portions of the prior art references which were not used in the prior office action, this does not constitute a new ground of rejection. It is clear that the prior art reference is of record and has been considered entirely by applicant. See In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966) and In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961).
The mere fact that additional portions of the same reference may have been mentioned or relied upon does not constitute new ground of rejection. In re Meinhardt, 392, F.2d 273, 280, 157 USPQ 270, 275 (CCPA 1968).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael Dobbins et al., US 2009/0213114 A1.
Independent claim 16, Dobbins discloses a method implemented by a computer system for testing an installation or removal of at least one component within an installation environment that includes real and virtual elements, the method comprising:
calibrating, by the computer system, the at least one component (i.e. can track the movements and interactions of objects, including tools and props, e.g. components, used by a user - Para 11), the installation environment with the real elements (i.e. validating a simulation with real-world video using immersive technology – Fig. 12; Para 33), at least one hand, and a mixed reality system (i.e. The motion capture system, for example, can track the movements and interactions of a user (who is wearing a motion capture ensemble with flexible and adjustable level of detail, from just the head to a full body suit and gloves) within the virtual reality simulation – Para 11; Fig. 2, 3; when the user's head rotates or tilts, the view of the simulation rendered in the head mounted display changes accordingly – Para 11);
tracking, by the computer system, the at least one component, the hand, and the mixed reality system during an attempted installation or removal of the at least one component (i.e. the motion capture system 30 includes, for example, users wearing bodysuits 32, gloves 34, and headgear 36 with markers 52 at known locations – Para 37; sensors to determine the positions of the head tracker – Para 46); and
visualizing, by the computer system, the attempted installation or removal of the at least one component using the mixed reality system (i.e. provide a collaborative visualization system; allow one or more persons to interact with real and artificial environments, and head mounted displays for evaluating a design, virtual training on a task – Para 9).
Claim 17, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising detecting and recording, by the computer system, the respective position and orientation of the at least one component (i.e. the motion capture system, for example, can track the movements, e.g. position and orientation, and interactions of objects, including tools and props used by a user – Para 11), the hand (i.e. motion tracking markers (perhaps on a suit, body, or other apparel), a plurality of cameras installed on a tripod or clamped on a rigid structure so that cameras can track the movements of a user wearing the motion capture markers – Para 15; motions of one or more users can be tracked and captured for task analysis – Para 50), and the mixed reality system during the tracking (i.e. The method continues with capturing the head rotation information of a user by a motion capture system (step 92) – Para 52).
Claim 18, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising calibrating and tracking, by the computer system, at least one tool (i.e. can track the movements and interactions of objects, including tools and props used by a user - Para 11; sensors to determine the positions of the head tracker and wand; takes information from the head tracker and wand and makes that information available to either CAVELib or the ENVISION (D5) simulation. This tracked information is applied to correct the projections on the walls and the floor of the CAVE 44. – Para 46; when the user's head rotates or tilts, the view of the simulation rendered in the head mounted display changes accordingly – Para 11).
Claim 19, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the tracking is based on detecting, by the computer system, passive or active markers, or three-dimensional tracking elements, which are arranged on or within the components, the mixed reality system, the tool, or the hand (i.e. This system includes motion tracking markers (perhaps on a suit, body, or other apparel), a plurality of cameras installed on a tripod or clamped on a rigid structure so that cameras can track the movements of a user wearing the motion capture markers, and a computer to record the images from the camera. – Para 15; the motion capture system 30 includes, for example, users wearing bodysuits 32, gloves 34, and headgear 36 with markers 52 at known locations – Para 37).
Claim 20, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 16, wherein calibrating the hand includes calibrating, by the computer system, a glove worn by the hand and the fingers in relation to the glove (i.e. The motion capture system, for example, can track the movements and interactions of a user (who is wearing a motion capture ensemble with flexible and adjustable level of detail, from just the head to a full body suit and gloves) within the virtual reality simulation – Para 11; Fig. 2, 3).
Claim 21, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising detecting, by the computer system, collisions or near-collisions between the component, the hand, or a tool, and the real elements and the virtual elements of the installation environment, as well as among the components, during the attempted installation or removal of the at least one component (i.e. for the purpose of, amongst others, evaluating a design, virtual training on a task, and validating a simulation with a real-world video - Para 33; the virtual reality simulator can include collision detection software to provide feedback within the simulation – Para 43).
Claim 22, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 21, wherein virtual representations of real objects are used by the computer system to detect or visualize collisions or near-collisions (i.e. allow a user to interact with a computer-simulated environment – Para 6; the virtual reality simulator can include collision detection software to provide feedback within the simulation – Para 43).
Claim 23, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising providing tactile, auditory, or visual feedback, by the computer system, in response to a collision or near-collision with a virtual element or a real object (i.e. Similarly, if a knee "collides" with a bomb in the simulation, the bomb turns red. In an exemplary embodiment, an appearance of the object is altered in response to the collision. In exemplary configuration, the collision triggers a sound; the sound can be a directional sound indicating a direction of the collision with respect to the user or observer – Para 43).
Claim 24, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 21, wherein collisions or near-collisions occurring outside the visual range are visualized by providing a notice in the field of view, by the computer system (i.e. If a user sticks a hand where the simulation indicates that a wall should be, a virtual collision is detected. The hand can be stopped at the time of the collision or be allowed to disappear from the view of the user and the panel of the wall change color (or some other behavior) to provide feedback and indicate that a collision has occurred. – Pare 43).
Claim 25, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 16, wherein virtual representations of real objects are used by the computer system to determine obstructions that are considered during the visualization of the attempted installation of the at least one component (i.e. the virtual reality simulator can include collision detection software to provide feedback within the simulation; a user hitting the user's head on part of an aircraft can result in a different sound than a object colliding with the floor – Para 43).
Claim 26, Dobbins discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising recording, by the computer system, the installation or removal path of the at least one component and information relating to collisions or near-collisions during the attempted installation or removal (i.e. the virtual reality simulator can include collision detection software to provide feedback within the simulation; the simulation can alter its behavior based on detected collisions, by opening a door or panel, for example - Para 43).
Independent claim 27, the claim is similar in scope to claim 16. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 16 applies herein.
Claims 28-34, similar rationale as applied in the corresponding rejection of claims 17-26 applies herein.
Independent claim 35, the claim is similar in scope to claim 16. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 16 applies herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights