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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s correspondence, filed 8/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in view of the currently presented amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tamayo.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Gil et al. (US 2002/0188486 A1) in view of
Grosvenor et al. (US 7,216,086 B1) and in further view of
Tamayo (US 2014/0279824 A1) and
Maciocci et al. (US 2012/0249741 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gil discloses:
A system, comprising: (Gil, Abstract)
a computer, comprising a processor and memory, (Gil, ¶34: operations performed by conventional computer components, including CPU, processor and memory) configured to:
receive supply chain data comprising one or more parameters of a supply chain network (Gil, ¶7: “A request for a transaction involving an enterprise and at least one partner in a supply chain is received from an end-user or the partner. Real-time data relevant to the transaction is accessed from an existing partner system”; ¶¶60-62 discloses real-time shared data using networked devices for real-time monitoring that alerts an entity when the reality of events or conditions in the supply chain deviates from an entity’s plan or business process) ;
display and interact, using a (Gil, ¶34 discloses system including local or remote pixel-orientated display devices; ¶73: graphical user interface 112 may be a graphical interface that allows an user to access and interact with the network domain 14; also ¶79: web-browser graphical user interface (GUI); Fig. 15 and ¶183: graphical user interface 370);
display an alert for one or more key process indicators of the supply chain network in response to monitoring one or more supply chain processes (Gil, ¶¶62-63: real-time monitoring that alerts an entity when reality of events or conditions in supply chain deviates from an entity’s plan or business process, including transactional processing for monitoring, reporting and alerting; ¶64: real-time reporting of metrics on a graphical user interface; ¶121 discusses performance management subsystem monitoring system performance statistics, and defining metrics for performance of entities in the supply chain; ¶¶183-184: GUI including alert component 372, where “The graphical user interface 370 can be customized to specify key business indicators of an enterprise or of a partner. Using real-time alerts and exception handling via wireless or e-mail, notifications based on key performance indicators may be sent to decision-makers at an enterprise or a partner proactively before the customer is even aware of a potential situation.” ¶186: Alerts may include actions and trigger conditions, such as order volumes exceeding a specified amount, maximum time allowed for an activity being reached, or an SLA being violated and alerts may be classified by severity according to specific business process and/or product control thresholds; Note Fig. 15 shows Alerts section 372, including view icon)
interact with the (Gil, ¶82: The alert manager component 158 may provide or support alert handling, exception management, and event management capabilities for the actions take (or not taken) by the various entities pursuant to the transaction messages; Fig. 15 and ¶¶183-184: alert manager displayed in GUI)
Gil fails to explicitly discloses select the displayed alert to control one or more visualizations of data which are associated with, at least in part, the displayed alert.
Grosvenor discloses:
select the displayed alert to control one or more visualizations of data which are associated with, at least in part, the displayed alert (Grosvenor, Fig. 3A and 3B and [9:31-43]: alert data 316, where user interface provides access to alerts; [10:7-38]: detailed information, where drilldown link pane 354 presents one or more links, selection of which causes the system to display even further detailed information relating to the alert; Also note [9:52-63] discusses sorting information in alert data by selecting field headings etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method for providing an interactive user interface as provided by Gil, by including the interactivity of alerts as provided by Grosvenor, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The additional controls over the display of data allows a user more flexibility in viewing information, better controlling the clutter of information and allowing visibility of interactive elements with less information when not required, for less consumption of screen space, while also allowing for more focused information when desired by a user.
Gil modified by Grosvenor fails to teach the particular GUI including a cuboid as claimed.
Tamayo discloses:
wherein the (Tamayo, ¶32: time-sensative cube data system accesses types of data stored in multidimensional database, including any number of data dimensions and data metrics, for display; Fig. 5 and ¶34 discloses OLAP cube that allows a user to select e.g. 554 shown as intersection of dimensions in Fig. 5)
wherein the interaction comprises manipulating the cuboid by one or more of rotating, expanding, compressing, slicing, dicing or stacking the cublets (Tamayo, ¶52: The data of an OLAP cube is organized such that the OLAP cube may be manipulated and operated upon in various ways such that a user may rapidly extract relevant data. Examples of typical operations include, but are not limited to, drill up and down, roll up, roll down, pivot, and slice and dice, among others. OLAP cubes may also be referred to herein as multidimensional databases, cubes, and/or hypercubes.)
Examiner further points out that Gil is directed to supply chain management including displaying an interactive user interface for manipulating a supply chain using data from a data base storing real-time data for transactions etc. (Gil, ¶¶9-10; Also ¶¶62-64, 121, and 183-184 disclosing GUI for real time metrics and performance management subsystem, as discussed above; also ¶56: support for connections to databases and any other software systems used to manage supply chain operations). Tamayo is directed to presenting similar data stored in a database and providing an interactive interface for time-sensitive data (see e.g. Tamayo, ¶¶11 and 32, discussing use of OLAP cube for time-sensitive data from database), similar to the supply chain management data of Gil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method for providing an interactive user interface as provided by Gil, including the interactivity of alerts as provided by Grosvenor, with the additional graphical user interface display of database data within an interactive graphic cube as provided by Tamayo, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification uses a known technique of presenting interactive database information within an interactive cube interface, to a known interactive database system presenting interactive data in a graphic user interface, ready for improvement of presenting the database information and user controls in an predictable results of a known interactive cube, instead of some other known graphical format. The modification also results in an improved user interface for viewing graphical database information by utilizing a design including a cube for presenting the data, which enhances the visual efficiency and experience for the user
Gil modified by Grosvenor and Tamayo further fails to incorporate a mixed reality display device for presenting the virtual object for interaction.
Maciocci discloses:
display and interact, using a mixed-reality display device, with a mixed-reality object and interact with the mixed reality object (Maciocci, Fig. 1 and ¶66: HMD for displaying anchored virtual objects facilitating interactions with device; Fig. 4 shows display of graphed data user interface; ¶69: virtual object may be any virtual object 14)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method for providing an interactive user interface as provided by Gil, including the interactivity of alerts as provided by Grosvenor, with the additional user interface architecture for performing the user interface in an augmented reality interface as provided by Maciocci, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved user interface for viewing graphical database information by allowing a more intuitive controls for display and manipulation of data by utilizing augmented reality. Furthermore, the modification merely substitutes one type of display device for presenting computer derived data to a user for another, yielding predictable results of presenting computer derived data to a user on an augmented reality display, as opposed to another type of well-known display device.
Regarding claim 8, the system of claim 1 performs the method of claim 8 and as such claim 8 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Gil discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodied with software, the software when executed configured to perform operations (Gil, ¶34: operations performed by conventional computer components, including CPU, processor and memory; ¶¶34-35 discloses data stored in computer memory; ¶37: it may prove advantageous to construct a specialized apparatus to perform one or more of the method steps described herein by way of dedicated computer systems with hard-wired logic or programs stored in nonvolatile memory, such as read-only memory (ROM))
Further regarding claim 15, the operations perform the method of claim 8 and as such the claim is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 8 set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Gil further discloses:
wherein the displayed alert comprises one or more of: visual, auditory and haptic cues (Gil, ¶97: alert may be presented, for example, via a suitable GUI (e.g., GUI 112 of FIG. 4), thereby signaling the user that there is a task 200 that requires completion; Also see Fig. 15, alert view).
Regarding claim 9, the system of claim 2 performs the method of claim 9 and as such claim 9 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2 set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations included from claim 15 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 15 set forth above. Further regarding claim 16, the additional operations perform the additional method steps of claim 9 and as such the claim is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 9 set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Gil further discloses:
wherein the system further comprises: one or more sensors located remote from the (Gil, ¶¶42-43: networked system of computer systems; ¶51 discloses network including connecting a plurality of types of devices, including wireless devices, which inherently requires a sensor for communication).
Maciocci further discloses:
wherein the system further comprises: one or more sensors located remote from the mixed-reality display device (Maciocci, ¶231: The directory 2280 assists the first device 2205 and facilitates connectivity via a router 2275 between the remote users 2205, 2210. In this manner, the second head mounted device 2210 may determine that the head mounted device 2210 is in a particular location and may communicate the location to the router 2275; ¶¶232-233: HMDs include sensors, including second device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method for providing an interactive user interface as provided by Gil, including the interactivity of alerts as provided by Grosvenor, and the GUI controls of Tamayo, with the additional user interface architecture for performing the user interface in an augmented reality interface as provided by Maciocci, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved user interface for viewing graphical database information by allowing a more intuitive controls for display and manipulation of data by utilizing augmented reality. Furthermore, the modification merely substitutes one type of display device for presenting computer derived data to a user for another, yielding predictable results of presenting computer derived data to a user on an augmented reality display, as opposed to another type of well-known display device.
Regarding claim 14, the system of claim 7 performs the method of claim 14 and as such claim 14 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 7 set forth above.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Gil et al. (US 2002/0188486 A1) in view of
Grosvenor et al. (US 7,216,086 B1),
Tamayo (US 2014/0279824 A1) and
Maciocci et al. (US 2012/0249741 A1) and in further view of
Burns et al. (US 2020/0082632 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations included from claim 1 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above. Further regarding claim 3, Burns discloses:
wherein the computer is further configured to: automatically select one or more dimensions for display by the mixed-reality object (Burns, Fig. 2 and ¶41: different modalities for virtual object; ¶44: FIG. 1 illustrates the virtual element displayed in a vertical surface modality 45. Based on the virtual element being positioned on the wall 30 and thus associated with a vertical surface attribute, the virtual element is displayed in the vertical surface modality 45 (e.g., as a weather sign). In this example, the vertical surface modality 45 of the virtual elements displays a 2D image or sign representing the weather and the high and low predicted daily temperatures; ¶46: FIG. 1 further illustrates the virtual element displayed in a horizontal surface modality 55. In this example, the appearance, functionality and interactivity of the horizontal surface modality 55 of the virtual element differ from those of the vertical surface modality 45 and the open space modality 50. The virtual element in this example is positioned relative to a horizontal flat surface of depiction of a real-world end table 25. Based on this location, the virtual element is displayed in a horizontal surface modality 55, e.g., as a decorative snow globe in which the current or predicted weather is displayed in a 3D manner within the globe.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method for providing an interactive user interface as provided by Gil, including the interactivity of alerts as provided by Grosvenor, the GUI controls of Tamayo, and the additional user interface architecture for performing the user interface in an augmented reality interface as provided by Maciocci, with the additional control of displayed data as provided by Burns, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved interactive user interface for a user by allowing more diverse visual effects for a more interactive and immersive system, and also allowing for different display of data based on user preference of location and improving the visibility of the objects for easier understanding and control based on the locations.
Regarding claim 10, the system of claim 3 performs the method of claim 10 and as such claim 10 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 3 set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations included from claim 15 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 15 set forth above. Further regarding claim 17, the additional operations perform the additional method steps of claim 10 and as such the claim is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 10 set forth above.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Gil et al. (US 2002/0188486 A1) in view of
Grosvenor et al. (US 7,216,086 B1),
Tamayo (US 2014/0279824 A1) and
Maciocci et al. (US 2012/0249741 A1) and in further view of
Hennessey et al. (US 2014/0184550 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations included from claim 1 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above. Further regarding claim 4, Hennessey discloses:
wherein the mixed-reality display device is further configured to: alter a color of a visual element in response to detecting a gaze at a location (Hennessey, Fig. 24 and ¶¶117-118: interaction with spreadsheet, including pointer 224 colored differently and tracking where attention is focused; Fig. 36 and ¶143: UI elements can be highlighted to indicate gaze point, e.g. Gaze highlighting 406 can be shown with changing color or intensity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method for providing an interactive supply chain management system as provided by Gil, including the interactivity of alerts as provided by Grosvenor, the GUI controls of Tamayo and user interface architecture for performing the user interface in an augmented reality interface as provided by Maciocci, by further incorporating control of a user interface using gaze and highlighting feedback as provided by Hennessey, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved user interface by allowing hands free control for more intuitive control by users, as well as allowing for alternate controls freeing up user’s hands, while also providing better feedback by ensuring the user knows the system is responding and indicating a location of interaction, for easier usability (see e.g. Hennessey, ¶82: “It is now possible to interact with these objects 40 in a far more natural way than has been previously possible”).
Regarding claim 11, the system of claim 4 performs the method of claim 11 and as such claim 11 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4 set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations included from claim 15 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 15 set forth above. Further regarding claim 18, the additional operations perform the additional method steps of claim 11 and as such the claim is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 11 set forth above.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Gil et al. (US 2002/0188486 A1) in view of
Grosvenor et al. (US 7,216,086 B1),
Tamayo (US 2014/0279824 A1) and
Maciocci et al. (US 2012/0249741 A1) and in further view of
Wong (US 2011/0071871 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations included from claim 1 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above. Further regarding claim 5, Wong discloses:
wherein the computer is further configured to: map the received supply chain data to one or more visualization (Wong, ¶123: alert mapping field 1412 may provide information on a mapping of the alert (e.g., customizable alert) with data (e.g., specific data values) of the alert business object. The alert message field 1414 may provide information on a list of messages propagated for the alert (e.g., for different events, for different users, etc.).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method for providing an interactive supply chain management system as provided by Gil, including the interactivity of alerts as provided by Grosvenor and the GUI controls of Tamayo, user interface architecture for performing the user interface in an augmented reality interface as provided by Maciocci, by further coordinating data as provided by Wong, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved supply chain management system by ensuring data coordinates between displayed data for improved accuracy and allowing for improved understanding an interaction with a supply chain being managed by the software.
Regarding claim 12, the system of claim 5 performs the method of claim 12 and as such claim 12 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 51 set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations included from claim 15 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 15 set forth above. Further regarding claim 19, the additional operations perform the additional method steps of claim 12 and as such the claim is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 12 set forth above.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Gil et al. (US 2002/0188486 A1) in view of
Grosvenor et al. (US 7,216,086 B1),
Tamayo (US 2014/0279824 A1) and
Maciocci et al. (US 2012/0249741 A1) and in further view of
Youngstrom et al. (US 2019/0258072 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations included from claim 1 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above. Further regarding claim 6, Youngstrom discloses:
wherein the mixed-reality display device is further configured to: provide incremental discovery of one or more supply chain components in response to detecting a gaze in a direction. (Youngstrom, Figs. 4 and 5 and ¶33:
The surface 140 may be configured with scrolling-type behavior; manipulation of the input/control system 146 causes the surface 140 to change relative to the mixed reality. For example, the surface 140 may rotate in the azimuthal direction based on azimuthal control inputs (e.g., head rotation left or right). Detection of a change of the gaze direction 145 of a sufficient angle and direction may cause auto-scrolling of the surface 140, with speed possibly controlled by the angle or angular speed of the gaze direction 145. Such automated scrolling may be implemented by altering a 3D model of the surface 140 in the mixed reality and/or by altering graphic content that is mapped to a surface of the 3D model. The former case may involve rotating the 3D model of the surface in a manner akin to rotating a cylinder about its central axis. The latter case may involve drawing animation of scrolling data items 150 on the surface. In sum, a user may use the input/control system 142 to control how the surface 140 is viewed.
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method for providing an interactive supply chain management system as provided by Gil, including the interactivity of alerts as provided by Grosvenor, the GUI controls of Tamayo, and user interface architecture for performing the user interface in an augmented reality interface as provided by Maciocci, by further incorporating control of a user interface using control as provided by Youngstrom, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved user interface by allowing hands free control for more intuitive control by users, as well as allowing for alternate controls freeing up user’s hands, while also providing better feedback by ensuring the user knows the system is responding and allowing for viewing additional information that is not otherwise viewable in a smaller display space.
Regarding claim 13, the system of claim 6 performs the method of claim 13 and as such claim 13 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 6 set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations included from claim 15 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 15 set forth above. Further regarding claim 20, the additional operations perform the additional method steps of claim 13 and as such the claim is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 13 set forth above.
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 WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights