The Boeing CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 20222020006771 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2022) Copy Citation 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. 15/919,898 03/13/2018 Paul Robert Davies 17-2112-US-NP 8111 63759 7590 03/29/2022 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. P.O. BOX 6669 MCKINNEY, TX 75071 EXAMINER TUNG, KEE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2022 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): patentadmin@boeing.com ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PAUL ROBERT DAVIES, BRIAN DALE LAUGHLIN, ALEXANDRA MARIE WHITE, and GREGORY ALAN GARRETT Appeal 2020-006771 Application 15/919,898 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING This is a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 (“Req. Reh’g”) of the Decision on Appeal entered January 19, 2022 (“Dec.”). We have considered Appellant’s1 arguments, but are not persuaded to change the outcome of the Decision. However, the Request is granted for the limited purpose of identifying step [3] of claims 1 and 12 as the disputed limitation. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006771 Application 15/919,898 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-22 stand rejected by the Examiner in the Final Office Action under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Lalonde, alone, or combined with additionally cited references to address certain dependent claims. Dec. 2. Appellant contends that the Decision “has misapprehended or overlooked which identified step,” recited in independent claims 1 and 12, was argued by Appellant as not disclosed by the Lalonde reference. Req. Reh’g 2. Specifically, Appellant states that the Decision identified limitation [2] as the disputed limitation, when Appellant actually stated in the Appeal Brief that Lalonde fails to disclose limitation [3] reciting “deactivate a visual display of the augmented reality information on the mobile display system when a speed at which the user is moving with respect to the structure meets a deactivation condition.” Id. at 3. We agree with Appellant that the Decision incorrectly identified limitation [2] as the limitation argued by Appellant as not taught or suggested by Lalonde. However, this error has no impact on the outcome of the Decision because, as explained below, we accurately addressed Appellant’s arguments, which focused on the issue of whether Lalonde teaches or suggests determining the “predicted path or speed of the user to prepare visual cues in case a virtual object enters the predefined area (D) in the future.” Appeal Br. 8. The Request for Rehearing, after identifying what the Decision “misapprehended or overlooked,” repeats the same argument set forth in the Appeal Brief, with no additional new arguments. Req. Reh’g 4-7. Appeal 2020-006771 Application 15/919,898 3 For completeness, illustrative claim 12 (annotated with bracketed numbers for reference to the steps in the claim) is reproduced below, along with a discussion to show that the Decision was fully responsive to Appellant’s arguments. 12. A method for safety enhancement comprising: [1] receiving, by a safety controller, movement information for a user of a mobile display system that displays augmented reality information; [2] determining, by the safety controller, a speed at which the user is moving with respect to a structure using the movement information and a three-dimensional model of the structure; and [3] deactivating, by the safety controller, a visual display of the augmented reality information on the mobile display system when the speed at which the user is moving with respect to the structure meets a deactivation condition. Claim 1 is directed to a system which is configured to carry out substantially the same steps recited in claim 12. ANALYSIS In the Final Office Action, the Examiner cited the abstract of Lalonde as describing step [3] of claim 12 of “deactivating, by the safety controller, a visual display of the augmented reality information on the mobile display system.” Final Act. 11. The Examiner did not find that the Lalonde abstract teaches or suggests “deactivating” the visual display “when the speed at which the user is moving with respect to the structure meets a deactivation condition” as additionally required by step [3] of claim 12. The Examiner therefore cited paragraph 22 of Lalonde for its disclosure that the system, described in the abstract, may use information about the user’s movement “‘to predict the user’s impending, or future, movement path and/or position Appeal 2020-006771 Application 15/919,898 4 and/or orientation based on, for example, the user's direction and/or velocity, and any obstacles and/or hazards, in the ambient environment 400 and/or in the virtual environment 400A, in the user’s predicted path.’” Final Act. 11 (quoting from Lalonde ¶ 22) (emphasis omitted). This latter finding by the Examiner also corresponds to step [2] of claim 12 of “determining . . . a speed at which the user is moving with respect to a structure using the movement information and a three-dimensional model of the structure.” The Examiner concluded, based on the disclosure in the abstract and paragraph 22 of Lalonde, that Lalonde describes step [3] of claim 12: therefore, the deactivation condition is when a virtual object is within the defined proximity/area of “impending, or future” position of the user, calculated based on the speed of the user; if Lalonde were to use currently collected position of the user to determine when a virtual object is within the defined proximity/area of the user, there would be no point for calculating impending or future positions or paths. Final Act. 11. The Examiner also reasoned it would have been obvious to deactivate the visual display “when the speed at which the user is moving with respect to the structure meets a deactivation condition” as recited in step [3] of claim 12. The Examiner explained, after quoting from the abstract and paragraph 22 of Lalonde: Even if Lalonde were to use currently collected position of the user to determine when a virtual object is within the defined proximity/area of the user, it would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another that produces predictable results (KSR); the “impending, or future” position of the user may be used to replace the currently detected positions, and such substitution produces predictable results; In addition, the benefits of combining the use of “future, or impending” Appeal 2020-006771 Application 15/919,898 5 position of the user would have been that a warning would have been issued in time in case the person is moving fast). Final Act. 11. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant stated that the references failed to teach or suggest the “deactivating” limitation [3] of the claims “when a speed a user is moving meets a deactivation condition.” Appeal Br. 5-6. Appellant’s subsequent arguments focused on the disclosure in paragraph 22 of Lalonde. For example, Appellant argued that Lalonde “teaches no purpose for tracking the movement and velocity of the user other than to predict the intended path of the user.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argued that “nowhere in the LaLonde disclosure is it taught or suggested that the system uses predicted path or speed of the user to prepare visual cues in case a virtual object enters the predefined area (D) in the future.” Id. at 8. Thus, although Appellant argued in the Appeal Brief that step [3] of the claim is not taught or suggested in Lalonde, the arguments were directed at whether Lalonde dteaches or suggests determining “a speed at which the user is moving with respect to a structure using the movement information and a three-dimensional model of the structure” as recited in step [2]. Step [2] is a precondition to step [3] of the claim because the speed determination must first be made to determine whether the “deactivation condition” is met in step [3]. The Decision stated that Appellant argued that the limitation [2] of the claims is not taught by Lalonde. Dec. 5, 6. We recognize that this statement in the Decision was inaccurate because Appellant actually referenced limitation [3] of the claims as the disputed limitation. However, the arguments in the Appeal Brief, as explained above, focused on the speed determining limitation [2] of the claims and did not provide arguments on Appeal 2020-006771 Application 15/919,898 6 the issue of whether Lalonde teaches deactivating the visual display when the “speed at which the user is moving with respect to the structure meets a deactivation condition” as recited in limitation [3] of the claims. In the Request for Rehearing, Appellant did not provide any new or additional arguments to those already made in the Appeal Brief, and did not identify a deficiency in the fact-finding or reasoning set forth in the Decision in affirming the Examiner’s rejection. Req. Reh’g 4-7. Consequently, because these arguments were fully addressed in the Decision, it is unnecessary here to provide an additional response. We grant the rehearing for the limited purpose of identifying the limitation in dispute as limitation [3] of claims 1 and 12. Appeal 2020-006771 Application 15/919,898 7 Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Denied Granted 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-14, 16, 17, 20 103 Lalonde 2, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20 1, 12 3, 15 103 Lalonde, Chen 3, 15 6, 18 103 Lalonde, Narayanaswami 6, 18 7, 19 103 Lalonde, Narayanaswami, Campbell 7, 19 21, 22 103 Lalonde, Oba 21, 22 Overall Outcome 2-11, 13-22 1, 12 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-14, 16, 17, 20 103 Lalonde 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-14, 16, 17, 20 3, 15 103 Lalonde, Chen 3, 15 6, 18 103 Lalonde, Narayanaswami 6, 18 7, 19 103 Lalonde, Narayanaswami, Campbell 7, 19 21, 22 103 Lalonde, Oba 21, 22 Overall Outcome 1-22 GRANTED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation