DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 27 November 2024, claiming benefit back to 30 May 2018.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no 18/459,160, filed on 31 August, 2023, now Abandoned (“Parent Application”), which was a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/498,971 filed on 12 October 2021, now U.S. Patent 11,747,909. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 – 13 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of corresponding claims of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,747,909. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 – 13 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,747,909. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 16 – 19 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,747,909. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to:
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 14 – 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,909 (‘909 patent).
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,909 (‘909 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the comparison of the claims below, claim 14 of the ‘909 patent would anticipate claim 14 of the instant Application.
U.S. 11,747,909
14. A device, comprising:
a display configured to display a virtual object in an augmented reality environment or a virtual reality environment;
a sensor configured to monitor a user performing a task; and
a processing device coupled to the display and the sensor, wherein the processing device is configured to:
identify the task in a task flow for a project to collect data associated with the user performing the task;
collect data for the task using the sensor; compare an amount of time the user expends to perform the task to a threshold amount of time associated with a user profile for the user; and
in response to the amount of time the user expends to perform the task exceeding the threshold amount of time:
display a first notification to the user while performing the task;
display a second notification to the user when the task or the project is completed; or
send a third notification to another device indicating an improvement to the first task or the task flow.
Instant Application
14. A device, comprising:
a display configured to display a virtual object in an augmented reality environment or a virtual reality environment;
a sensor configured to monitor a user performing a task; and
a processing device coupled to the display and the sensor, wherein the processing device is configured to:
identify the task in a task flow for a project to collect data associated with the user performing the task;
collect data for the task using the sensor; compare an amount of time the user expends to perform the task to a threshold amount of time associated with a user profile for the user; and
in response to the amount of time the user expends to perform the task exceeding the threshold amount of time:
display a first notification to the user while performing the task; or
display a second notification to the user when the task or the project is completed
.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,909 (‘909 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, claim 14 of the ‘909 patent would anticipate claim 15 of the instant Application.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,909 (‘909 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the comparison of the claims below, claim 15 of the ‘909 patent would anticipate claim 16 of the instant Application.
Claims 1 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the comparison of the claims below, claim 1 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 1 of the instant Application.
U.S. 11,169,613
1. A device, comprising:
a head-mounted display configured to display a virtual object in an augmented reality environment;
a sensor configured to monitor a user performing a task;
a processing device coupled to the head-mounted display and the sensor, wherein the processing device is configured to:
identify the task in a task flow for a project to collect data associated with the user performing the task;
display a message associated with the task;
collect data for the task using the sensor;
identify a data model based on a user profile for the user;
compare an amount of time the user expends to perform the task to a threshold amount of time associated with the data model; and
in response to the amount of time the user expends to perform the task exceeding the threshold amount of time: provide a first notification to the user while performing the task;
provide a second notification to the user when the task or the project is completed;
send a third notification to another device indicating an improvement to the task or the task flow for the project, wherein:
the third notification comprises at least one of a data set, a text object, a graphical object, a video, a video chat, or a live data stream; and
the third notification indicating an improvement comprises at least one of raw data, unfiltered data, a first message indicating an issue the user faced while performing the task, a second message indicating a suggestion for how the user may adjust the task flow; and
adjust at least one of the device, the task flow, the message associate with the task, the first notification, the second notification, or the third notification based on the collected data.
Instant Application
1. A device, comprising:
a head-mounted display configured to display a virtual object in an augmented reality environment;
a sensor configured to monitor a user performing a task;
a processing device coupled to the head-mounted display and the sensor, wherein the processing device is configured to:
identify the task in a task flow for a project to collect data associated with the user performing the task;
display a message associated with the task;
collect data for the task using the sensor;
identify a data model based on a user profile for the user;
compare an amount of time the user expends to perform the task to a threshold amount of time associated with the data model; and
in response to the amount of time the user expends to perform the task exceeding the threshold amount of time: provide a first notification to the user while performing the task;
provide a second notification to the user when the task or the project is completed;
send a third notification to another device indicating an improvement to the task or the task flow for the project
adjust at least one of the device, the task flow, the message associate with the task, the first notification, the second notification, or the third notification based on the collected data.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 2 of the instant Application.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 3 of the instant Application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 4 of the instant Application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 5 of the instant Application.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 6 of the instant Application.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 7 of the instant Application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 8 of the instant Application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 9 of the instant Application.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 10 of the instant Application.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 11 of the instant Application.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 12 of the instant Application.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 13 of the instant Application.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the comparison of the claims below, claim 14 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 14 of the instant Application.
U.S. 11,169,613
14. A device, comprising:
a display configured to display a virtual object in an augmented reality environment or a virtual reality environment;
a sensor configured to monitor a user performing a task; and
a processing device coupled to the display and the sensor, wherein the processing device is configured to:
identify the task in a task flow for a project to collect data associated with the user performing the task;
collect data for the task using the sensor;
compare an amount of time the user expends to perform the task to a threshold amount of time associated with a user profile for the user; and
in response to the amount of time the user expends to perform the task exceeding the threshold amount of time:
display a first notification to the user while performing the task; or
display a second notification to the user when the task or the project is completed; and,
send a third notification to another device indicating an improvement to the task or the task flow, wherein:
the third notification comprises at least one of a first data set, a first text object, a first graphical object, a first video, a first video chat, or a first live data stream; and
the third notification indicating an improvement comprises at least one of raw data, unfiltered data, a first message indicating an issue the user faced while performing the task, or a second message indicating a suggestion for how the user may adjust the task flow.
Instant Application
14. A device, comprising:
a display configured to display a virtual object in an augmented reality environment or a virtual reality environment;
a sensor configured to monitor a user performing a task; and
a processing device coupled to the display and the sensor, wherein the processing device is configured to:
identify the task in a task flow for a project to collect data associated with the user performing the task;
collect data for the task using the sensor; compare an amount of time the user expends to perform the task to a threshold amount of time associated with a user profile for the user; and
in response to the amount of time the user expends to perform the task exceeding the threshold amount of time:
display a first notification to the user while performing the task; or
display a second notification to the user when the task or the project is completed
.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, claim 14 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claim 15 of the instant Application.
Claims 17 – 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,169,613 (‘613 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, claims 17 – 20 of the ‘613 patent would anticipate claims 17 – 20 of the instant Application, using the same rationale as in respect to claims 1 – 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Agarwal; Arvind et al. (US 20120095585 A1) directed to a system and method for workflow integration;
Torii; Kentaro et al. (US 20120265575 A1) directed to a task coordination support system and task coordination support method;
Barros; Alistair P. (US 20080127205 A1) directed to exception handling for collaborating process models;
Idan; Sassi (US 20200210931 A1) directed to systems and methods for scheduling tasks;
Smyth; Christopher C. (US 20140178843 A1) directed to a method and apparatus for facilitating attention to a task;
Yeung, Simon D. et al. (US 20050165822 A1) directed to systems and methods for business process automation, analysis, and optimization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625