Ex Parte Laughlin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13903252 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/903,252 05/28/2013 Brian Dale Laughlin 5013899.077US1 4063
128836 7590 08/02/2017
Wnmhle Parlvle SanHriHae Rr Rioe T T P
EXAMINER
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
GUPTA, PARUL H
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocketing @ wcsr. com
patentadmin @ B oeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte, BRIAN DALE LAUGHLIN, RICHARD N. BLAIR, and
WILLIAM DAVID KELSEY
Appeal 2016-007360
Application 13/903,252
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN F. HORVATH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—11, 13—18, 20, and 21. Claims 5, 12, and 19 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a system having sensors configured to
provide sensed input, including measurements of motion and orientation of a
user during performance of a task to work a complex-system component.
(Abstract.)
Appeal 2016-007360
Application 13/903,252
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A ubiquitous natural user system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to provide sensed input
including measurements of at least one of motion or orientation of a
user during performance of a task by the user to perform a build,
repair or maintenance activity on a complex-system component, the
one or more sensors including a muscle-activity sensor configured to
provide measurements of muscle activity of the user during
performance of the task, the task having a task definition; and
a front-end system coupled to the one or more sensors, and
configured to receive and process the sensed input including the
measurements to identify a known pattern that indicates a significance
of the sensed input from which to identify operations of an electronic
resource,
wherein the front-end system is configured to form and
communicate an input to cause the electronic resource to perform the
operations and produce an output, the operations including
calculation of a process variable related to performance of the task
from the measurements including the measurements of muscle
activity, and further including determination of compliance of
performance of the task with the task definition based on the
calculated process variable, and
wherein the front-end system is configured to receive the output
from the electronic resource, and communicate the output to a display
device, audio output device or haptic sensor, including the front-end
system being configured to receive and communicate an indication of
the compliance.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and
15 of commonly owned Application No. 14/079,6921 and Sabater Navarro
(US 2011/0137464 Al; June 9, 2011). (Non-Final Act. 2-9.)
1 Published as Kelsey (US 2014/0359540 Al; Dec. 4, 2014).
2
Appeal 2016-007360
Application 13/903,252
Claims 1—4, 6—11, 13—18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pretlove (US 2004/0189675 Al; Sept. 30,
2004), Izumi (US 2012/0056989 Al; Mar. 8, 2012), and Sabater Navarro.
(Non-Final Act. 9—15.)
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting Rejection
In view of Appellants’ amendments to the claims of co-pending
Application No. 14/079,692, in which independent claims 1, 8, and 15 were
cancelled and dependent claims 5—7, 12—14, and 19-21 were rewritten in
independent format to incorporate the features of base claims 1, 8, and 15
(Appellants’ Amendments, Application No. 14/079,692, filed Jan. 5, 2017),
the obviousness-type double patenting rejection has been rendered moot.
Appellants’ Amendments in co-pending Application No. 14/079,692 were in
response to our Decision on Appeal of a co-pending application (Appeal No.
2015-006694, entered Sept. 28, 2006, affirming-in-part the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—21). The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance
for Application No. 14/079,692 on Feb. 6, 2017, which issued as
US 9,645,652 on May 9, 2017.
§103 Rejection—Pretlove, Izumi, and Sabater Navarro
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-11) that the
combination of Pretlove, Izumi, and Sabater Navarro would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “the
operations including calculation of a process variable related to performance
of the task from the measurements including the measurements of muscle
3
Appeal 2016-007360
Application 13/903,252
activity, and further including determination of compliance of performance
of the task with the task definition based on the calculated process variable.”
The Examiner finds that capturing a pose of the remote operator’s
pointing device 13 of Pretlove to be “task related information”
corresponding to “operations including calculation of a process variable
related to performance of [a] task,” as recited in claim 1. (See Non-Final
Act. 10 (citing Pretlove 40-42); see also Ans. 6 (citing Pretlove 49—
51)). The Examiner further finds that updating the pose of remote operator’s
pointing device 13 of Pretlove corresponds to “operations including . . .
determination of compliance of performance of the task with the task
definition based on the calculated process variable,” as recited in claim 1.
(See Non-Final Act. 10 (citing Pretlove 151).) We do not agree.
Pretlove discloses an augmented reality system (11), in which an
operator can be physically separated from the location where the tasks or
processes are performed (12). Figure 1 of Pretlove illustrates an augmented
reality system, including a remote site having remote operators 3, graphical
display device 5 (e.g., heads-up display), tracking unit 7 (139), and pointing
device 13 that “makes it possible for the operator to point out positions and
orientations at the remote site” (140). Pretlove explains that “[t]he pointing
device allows a process expert, located remotely from where the robot is, to
perform a certain task on an image of the actual target object,” such that
“[the] remote operator can perform the robot programming task by teaching
points in the virtual world and the points taught are shown by a graphical
representation.” (| 22.) Pretlove further explains that “[t]he output from the
pointing device 13 . . . are transferred to an application unit 36. . . . [that]
contains the necessary software to perform the desired process or task, e.g.,
4
Appeal 2016-007360
Application 13/903,252
generate a robot program or support remote inspections” and “graphics
unit 37 also contains the entire virtual graphical representation from other
remote or local sections” such that “the pose of the pointing device will be
rendered so that an operator may get visual indications of what other
operators are pointing at.” (151.)
However, the Examiner fails to explain how updating the pose of the
remote operator’s pointing device 13 in Pretlove relates to determining
compliance with the performance of a task based on a calculated process
variable, where the calculated process variable is relates to performance of a
task, as claimed. For example, the previously captured pose of the remote
operator’s pointing device in Pretlove may indicate the device was pointing
5 degrees north-by-northwest. The updated pose of the remote operator’s
pointing device may indicate the device is now pointing 20 degrees south-
by-southeast. The Examiner fails to explain how updating the pose to reflect
the new orientation remote operator’s pointing device 13 of Pretlove
amounts to determining compliance with the previously recorded orientation
of the remote operator’s pointing device 13.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “paragraph
[0051] of Pretlove only mentions any pose (of pointing device 13) once, and
does not in fact disclose that or any other pose being constantly updated”
and “does not describe any compliance or ‘comparison of what was done to
the updated image,’ as alleged,” and that although paragraphs [0052] and
[0053] of Pretlove do disclose continuously updating the pose of display
device 5, “this pose is clearly not the same as the pose of the pointing
device 13,” and paragraphs [0052] and [0053] “also do not describe any
5
Appeal 2016-007360
Application 13/903,252
compliance or ‘comparison of what was done to the updated image,’” as
claimed. (App. Br. 10—11.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2—4, 6, and 7 depend
from independent claim 1, thus we do not sustain these claims for the same
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 8 and 15, as well as dependent claims 9—11, 13, 14, 16—
18, 20, and 21, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—11, 13—18, 20, and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
6