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
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 04/28/2026.
Claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 04/28/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “Applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea, such as a mental process or mathematics, because, none of the following claim limitations could be "practically performed in the human mind." Nor are Applicant's claims directed to methods of organizing human activity. Specifically: selecting ….; selecting… ; generating…; displaying …; altering…; and in response to the manipulating and the altering …; is patent-eligible subject matter. Applicants' claimed invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application by solving a problem particular to a use of mixed-reality-based sensory feedback and manipulation of supply chain planning applications (See paragraph [0002] of Applicants' specification). Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to Claims 1-20, be reconsidered and withdrawn based at least on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (page 3/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. The applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because none of the following claim limitations could be "practically performed in the human mind is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process".
Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities", as it relates to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations” are related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot.
As indicated in the Office Action and the rejection below, the steps of “ selecting, by a computer comprising a processor and memory, one or more data tables from which to render and visualize supply chain data; selecting, by the computer, a display color scheme of a mixed reality cuboid visualization; generating, by the computer, the mixed reality cuboid visualization according to the one or more selected data tables to display one or more supply chain exceptions; displaying and manipulating, by the computer, the mixed reality cuboid visualization in response to one or more inputs received from a rendering device, wherein the rendering device displays the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user; altering, by the computer, one or more supply chain variables based on, at least in part, the one or more received inputs; and in response to the manipulating and the altering, repeating, by the computer, the generating and the displaying to incorporate the one or more altered supply chain variables” are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information (e.g. supply chain planning and using mixed-reality-based sensory feedback and graphical representation and manipulation of supply chain monitoring, exception analysis, and resolution options) is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea as been identified above.
Therefore, claim 1 recitation as drafted, falls within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors as they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). As thus, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argues that “Easter fails to teach or suggest a "wherein the rendering device displays the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user" as required by Claim 1, as amended. Paragraph [0035] of Easter teaches "container information superimposed over the view of the containers" where this view is on a mobile device (see paragraph [0036] and Figure 1 - here Easter is teaching the use of, for example, a mobile phone). This simply does not teach, suggest or even hint at "wherein the rendering device displays the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user" as required by Claim 1, as amended. Accordingly, Easter fails to teach or suggest "wherein the rendering device displays the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user" as required by Claim 1, as amended. Tate-Gans, relied upon to teach a virtual reality display (e.g. using virtual reality display as shown in Figure 1 and discussed, for example, in paragraph [0024]) does not remedy the deficiencies of Easter and fails to teach or suggest "wherein the rendering device displays the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user" as required by Claim 1, as amended. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the rejection of Applicant's Claims 1- 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn ( page 11/13)”.
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Easter et al, US Pub No : 2019/0197787 A1 in view of Tate-Gans et al, US Pub No: 2019/0197785 A1. Tate-Gans, relied upon to teach the recitation of “selecting, by the computer, a display color scheme of a mixed reality cuboid visualization as shown in paragraph 177 ( Prism state legend 860 discloses the various different Prism states of Prisms based on a color scheme). Prism is transparent because it allows light to pass through clearly, enabling objects to be seen through it. And as disclosed by Tate-Gans, in at least paragraph 80, The head-mounted system 160 may be a mixed reality head-mounted system that includes a display system (e.g., a user interface) positioned in front of the eyes of the user 103, a speaker coupled to the head-mounted system and positioned adjacent the ear canal of the user, a user-sensing system, an environment sensing system, and a processor (all not shown). The head-mounted system 160 presents to the user 103 the display system (e.g., user interface) for interacting with and experiencing a digital world. Such interaction may involve the user and the digital world, one or more other users interfacing the representative environment 100, and objects within the digital and physical world.
Tate- Gans also, in at least paragraph 81 discloses the user interface may include viewing, selecting, positioning and managing virtual content via user input through the user interface. The user interface may be at least one or a combination of a haptics interface devices, a keyboard, a mouse, a joystick, a motion capture controller, an optical tracking device, an audio input device, a smartphone, a tablet, or the head-mounted system 160. Tate- Gans also in paragraph 83, the sensors 162 may include a camera or optical detection/scanning circuitry capable of detecting real-time optical characteristics/measurements of the user 103 such as, for example, one or more of the following: pupil constriction/dilation, angular measurement/positioning of each pupil, sphericity, eye shape (as eye shape changes over time) and other anatomic data. This data may provide, or be used to calculate information (e.g., the user's visual focal point) that may be used by the head-mounted system 160 to enhance the user's viewing experience. Thus, Tate- Gans discloses a Prism that is transparent or translucent. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 over the cited prior art is maintained.
Examiner notes: Applicant is respectively reminded that according to Rule 37 C.F.R.1.111 (under MPEP 714.02): "the reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references”. “A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirement of this section”.
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 directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
selecting, by one or more data tables from which to render and visualize supply chain data;
selecting, a display color scheme of a mixed reality cuboid visualization;
generating, the mixed reality cuboid visualization according to the one or more selected data tables to display one or more supply chain exceptions;
displaying and manipulating, the mixed reality cuboid visualization in response to one or more inputs received, wherein displays the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user;
altering, one or more supply chain variables based on, at least in part, the one or more received inputs; and
in response to the manipulating and the altering, repeating, the generating and the displaying to incorporate the one or more altered supply chain variables;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions such as one that support reality cuboid visualization ( a computer comprising a processor and memory, one or more data tables, rendering device (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components))and a database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
wherein the rendering device transmits (e.g. displays) the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions, and a database such as a computer comprising a processor and memory, one or more data tables, rendering device (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component), to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 57 and 117 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
wherein the rendering device transmits (e.g. displays) the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 8 and 15.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting displayed supply chain exceptions, which is part of the abstract idea (claims 2,9,16); further limiting one or more received inputs, which is part of the abstract idea (claims 3,10,17); further limiting displaying, by the computer, the mixed reality cuboid visualization, which is part of the abstract idea (claims 4,11,18); further limiting the abstract idea of mixed reality cuboid visualization, which is part of the abstract idea (claims 5,12,19); further limiting the abstract idea by automatically generating, by the computer, one or more resolution options to address the one or more displayed supply chain exceptions , which is part of the abstract idea (claims 6,13,19); further limiting one or more displayed supply chain exceptions, which is part of the abstract idea ( claims 7,14,20); and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Easter et al, US Pub No : 2019/0197787 A1 in view of Tate-Gans et al, US Pub No: 2019/0197785 A1.
Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Easter discloses:
selecting, by a computer comprising a processor and memory, one or more data tables from which to render and visualize supply chain data ;
generating, by the computer, the mixed reality visualization according to the one or more selected data tables to display one or more supply chain exceptions;
See at least paragraph 27 (the backend server 302 retrieves the container information from the database 314. After retrieving the container information from the database 314 (if necessary), the backend server 302 transmits the container information to the control circuit 304. The control circuit 304 generates the augmented reality presentation and causes presentation of the augmented reality presentation via the display device 308);
displaying and manipulating, by the computer, the mixed reality visualization in response to one or more inputs received from a rendering device;
altering, by the computer, one or more supply chain variables based on, at least in part, the one or more received inputs; and in response to the manipulating and the altering, repeating, by the computer, the generating and the displaying to incorporate the one or more altered supply chain variables;
See at least paragraph 35 (the augmented reality presentation includes one or more menus. For example, the menus can allow the user to select and/or request additional container information and/or browse the container information. In such embodiments, the container information is selectable and navigable via the mobile device. Additionally, in some embodiments, the augmented reality presentation can include an indicia of the container, such as a visual identifier of the container);
Easter does not specifically disclose, but Tate-Gans however discloses:
selecting, by the computer, a display color scheme of a mixed reality cuboid visualization (paragraph 177 ( Prism state legend 860 discloses the various different Prism states of Prisms based on a color scheme) ;
display and manipulate the mixed reality cuboid visualization in response to one or more inputs received from a rendering device, wherein the rendering device displays the mixed reality cuboid visualization on a transparent or translucent medium, wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization appears within a visual field of a user (see at least paragraphs 73, 77-78, 80-81 and 83 (paragraph 80 ( The head-mounted system 160 may be a mixed reality head-mounted system that includes a display system (e.g., a user interface) positioned in front of the eyes of the user 103, a speaker coupled to the head-mounted system and positioned adjacent the ear canal of the user, a user-sensing system, an environment sensing system, and a processor (all not shown). The head-mounted system 160 presents to the user 103 the display system (e.g., user interface) for interacting with and experiencing a digital world. Such interaction may involve the user and the digital world, one or more other users interfacing the representative environment 100, and objects within the digital and physical world); paragraph 81,(the user interface may include viewing, selecting, positioning and managing virtual content via user input through the user interface. The user interface may be at least one or a combination of a haptics interface devices, a keyboard, a mouse, a joystick, a motion capture controller, an optical tracking device, an audio input device, a smartphone, a tablet, or the head-mounted system 160); paragraph 83,(the sensors 162 may include a camera or optical detection/scanning circuitry capable of detecting real-time optical characteristics/measurements of the user 103 such as, for example, one or more of the following: pupil constriction/dilation, angular measurement/positioning of each pupil, sphericity, eye shape (as eye shape changes over time) and other anatomic data. This data may provide, or be used to calculate information (e.g., the user's visual focal point) that may be used by the head-mounted system 160 to enhance the user's viewing experience);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Easter’s augmented reality systems and methods for supply chain with Tate-Gans teaching for managing and displaying mixed reality cuboid visualization with the motivation of providing an integrated virtual content and presentation of supply chain information[4] as taught by Tate-Gans over that of Easter.
Claims 2,9 and 16:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easer further disclose:
wherein the one or more displayed supply chain exceptions are determined by evaluating one or more of: one or more supply chain models, one or more supply chain network models, one or more supply chain planning problems, supply chain planning data, and one or more mixed-reality KPI cuboid visualizations (see at least paragraph 3 (Complete and organized data are essential to ensuring that products are delivered on time, and to the correct retailer); paragraph 12 (providing an augmented reality (AR) system. The AR system allows drivers, as well as other personnel, to quickly ascertain information about containers on a delivery vehicle. In some embodiments, the AR system works with a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) to identify containers and present, after retrieving if necessary, information about the containers. The discussion of FIG. 1 provides and overview of such a system);
Claims 3,10 and 17:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easer further disclose:
wherein the one or more received inputs comprise one or more of physical, visual, and voice input from the rendering device ( paragraph 12 (providing an augmented reality (AR) system. The AR system allows drivers, as well as other personnel, to quickly ascertain information about containers on a delivery vehicle. In some embodiments, the AR system works with a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) to identify containers and present, after retrieving if necessary, information about the containers. The discussion of FIG. 1 provides and overview of such a system);
Claims 4,11 and 18:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easer further disclose:
displaying, by the computer, the mixed reality visualization by overlaying one or more visual elements over a visual feed from a camera; and altering, by the computer, an appearance and placement of the visual elements based, at least in part, on a movement of objects within the visual feed of the camera ( see at least paragraph 11 (receive from the backend server, the container information for the one of the containers, and generate the augmented reality presentation, wherein the augmented reality presentation includes the container information for the one of the containers superimposed over the view of the containers, and wherein the container information for the one of the containers is selectable and navigable via the mobile device); paragraph 12 (providing an augmented reality (AR) system. The AR system allows drivers, as well as other personnel, to quickly ascertain information about containers on a delivery vehicle. In some embodiments, the AR system works with a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) to identify containers and present, after retrieving if necessary, information about the containers. The discussion of FIG. 1 provides and overview of such a system);
Easter does not specifically disclose, but Tate-Gans however discloses:
a display of a mixed reality cuboid visualization (paragraph 177 ( Prism state legend 860 discloses the various different Prism states of Prisms based on a color scheme) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Easter’s augmented reality systems and methods for supply chain with Tate-Gans teaching for managing and displaying mixed reality cuboid visualization with the motivation of providing an integrated virtual content and presentation of supply chain information[4] as taught by Tate-Gans over that of Easter.
Claims 5,12 and 19:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easter does not specifically disclose, but Tate-Gans however discloses:
wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization comprises a rotatable three-dimensional cubical model comprised of smaller exception and non-exception cubelets ( see at least paragraph 332 (wherein the orientation defines how the Prism is rotated relative to an object); paragraph 333 (wherein the extent data defines a size of the Prism);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Easter’s augmented reality systems and methods for supply chain with Tate-Gans teaching for managing and displaying mixed reality cuboid visualization with the motivation of providing an integrated virtual content and presentation of supply chain information[4] as taught by Tate-Gans over that of Easter.
Claims 6,13 and 20:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easter further discloses:
automatically generating, by the computer, one or more resolution options to address the one or more displayed supply chain exceptions (see at least paragraph 19 ( the mobile device 202 can make calls to the backend server to retrieve, on demand, any of the container information 208 not stored locally); paragraph 20 (the mobile device 202 can present an alert if a container is found on the delivery vehicle that should not be there. For example, if as the driver views the cargo area of the delivery vehicle via the mobile device 202, the mobile device determines that a container is present that should have already been delivered, or is not supposed to be included on the delivery vehicle, the mobile device 202 can present an alert to the driver via the display device 204. This alert can be generic (e.g., a notification indicating that there is a container present that should not be there) or specific to the container (e.g., a notification indicating that a specific container should have been delivered/unloaded at a previous stop). The mobile device 202 can make this determination based on container identifiers read while the driver views the cargo area via the mobile device 202. .
Claim 7 :
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easter further discloses:
wherein the one or more displayed supply chain exceptions comprise one or more of: a supply chain event in which a supply chain component does not receive an expected input, a supply chain event in which a supply chain component does not generate an expected output and a supply chain event in which a planned quantity of material does not reach a planned destination in time (see at least paragraph 3 (Complete and organized data are essential to ensuring that products are delivered on time, and to the correct retailer); paragraph 12 (providing an augmented reality (AR) system. The AR system allows drivers, as well as other personnel, to quickly ascertain information about containers on a delivery vehicle. In some embodiments, the AR system works with a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) to identify containers and present, after retrieving if necessary, information about the containers. The discussion of FIG. 1 provides and overview of such a system);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Schwartz, US Pub No: 2009/0138375 A1, teaches A three dimensional web store having product images is created. Three dimensional product images are rendered from manufacturing information instead of the products themselves. The location of all products, advertisements, aisles, signs, and displays is determined for a real world store. The web store is then created using three dimensional internet or virtual world viewing and maneuvering capabilities, to appear identical to the real world store.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
