Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/712,419

WORK SUPPORT SYSTEM, AND WORK TARGET SPECIFYING DEVICE AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 22, 2024
Examiner
SHIH, HAOSHIAN
Art Unit
2179
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Hitachi, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
375 granted / 545 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
565
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
53.1%
+13.1% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 545 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-10 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 05/22/2024. CONTINUING DATA: This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/043394 11/24/2022 FOREIGN APPLICATIONS: JAPAN 2021-196938 12/03/2021 Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains reference numbers to figures. 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). 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. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manickam et al. (US 2019/0355177 A1) in view of Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1). As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Manickam discloses a work support system for supporting work of a worker, the work support system comprising: a work target specifying device to be used by the worker (fig.5; [0024]; a mixed reality device for building maintenance is disclosed); and a work support device to be used by a work supporter for supporting the work of the worker, the work support device being communicably connected to the work target specifying device ([0084]; a support device for providing remote help is connected with the mix reality device), wherein the work target specifying device is configured to acquire three-dimensional space data of a work space including a target device, … and output the created predetermined image data to the work support device ([0024], [0025], [0084]; a 3D environment is generated by the work target specifying device and the view from said device is shared with the work support device), and the work support device is configured to display the predetermined image data received from the work target specifying device, and transmit information received from the work supporter to the work target specifying device ([0084]; the worker can share a view with the support technician). Manickam does not expressly disclose create predetermined image data by associating two-dimensional image data obtained by imaging the target device with the target device in the three-dimensional space data. In the same field of endeavor, Shakib discloses create predetermined image data by associating two-dimensional image data obtained by imaging the target device with the target device in the three-dimensional space data ([0026]; the captured 2D image is rendered onto the 3D model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Manickam and Shakib before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the mixed reality equipment maintenance interface taught by Manickam to include the above limitation taught by Shakib with the motivation being to enhance image fidelity in the generated 3D model (Shakib, [0026]). As to claim 2, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the work target specifying device is configured to create support content data including guidance information for guiding the worker to the target device in the work space and provide the support content data to the worker (Manickam, fig.1; [0044]; a direction is provided for guiding the worker to the target device). As to claim 3, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the guidance information is information for requesting the worker to input, to the work target specifying device, specifying information for specifying the target device, in front of the target device (Manickam, fig.4A, fig.4B; user inputs to select specified information for the target device). As to claim 4, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the support content data is created based on work instruction manual data describing a work instruction for the target device (Manickam, [0074]; standard operating procedure “SOP” is provided). As to claim 7, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the work target specifying device is configured to acquire an evaluation of the work for the target device and store the evaluation together with a work history (Manickam, [0086]; a checklist is provided with the workorder for documenting the workorder). As to claim 8, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the work target specifying device and the work support device are directly connected to each other (Manickam, [0027]; the mixed reality device is directly connected with the building management system). INDEPENDENT claim 9 is a device variation of claim 1, claim 9 is therefore rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above. INDEPENDENT claim 10 is a method variation of claim 1, claim 9 is therefore rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manickam-Shakib in view of Sagawa (US 2016/0335578 A1). As to claim 5, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose wherein the work target specifying device is configured to extract a candidate of the target device by analyzing the two-dimensional image data obtained by imaging the work space, and present the candidate to the worker. In the same field of endeavor, Sagawa discloses extract a candidate of the target device by analyzing the two-dimensional image data obtained by imaging the work space, and present the candidate to the worker ([0074]; image data is extracted to obtain a match of the 3D model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Sagawa before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the mixed reality equipment maintenance interface taught by the prior art as combined to include the above limitation taught by Sagawa with the motivation being to improve accuracy by using image matching. As to claim 6, the prior art as combined discloses wherein when a plurality of candidates of the target device are provided, the work target specifying device causes the worker to select the target device from the plurality of candidates of the target device presented to the worker (Sagawa, fig.17, fig.19, [0074]; candidate devices are mapped, the user uses a camera on a tablet device to select the target device from a plurality of devices). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00. 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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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. /HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597186
SYNTHESIZING SHADOWS IN DIGITAL IMAGES UTILIZING DIFFUSION MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591329
REDUCED-SIZE INTERFACES FOR MANAGING ALERTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578832
DISTANCE-BASED USER INTERFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572325
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PLAYING SOUND EFFECTS OF MUSIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12561039
GENERATIVE MODEL WITH WHITEBOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+21.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 545 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month