Commissioner Finds Non-Invasive Virtual Reality Training System to be Inventive

Commissioner Finds Non-Invasive Virtual Reality Training System to be Inventive

Commissioner’s Decision # 1372

The Patent Appeal Board reversed an examiner’s finding of obviousness for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,554,498, [7] which discloses a virtual reality simulator for training users in the skill of welding. The Board found that the claimed invention had two inventive differences over the prior art as of its September 2004 priority date. First, unlike devices in the prior art which include sensors directly on the simulation apparatus, the claimed invention uses a non-invasive detection device that does not interfere with the user’s workspace. [47] Secondly, using this non-invasive device to record three-dimensional angles and special coordinates was also considered nonobvious. [48]

The Application includes two independent claims, numbered 1 and 26, which were each determined to be nonobvious. Independent claim 1 is provided below, along with the elements that were determined to be differences over the prior art underlined:

1. A system for training and qualification of a user performing a skill-related training exercise involving body motion in a workspace, comprising:

an input device … wherein the input device is a dummy welding torch;

a detection device positioned non-invasively with respect to the workspace, for measuring 3D angles and spatial coordinates of reference points relative to the input device and an organ of vision of the user during performance of the training exercise;

a computer apparatus connectable with the input device … for:

computing a simulated 3D dynamic environment in real time … the simulated 3D dynamic environment reflecting effects caused by actions performed by the user … ;

… ; and

setting user qualification as a function of the recorded data [,]

wherein setting user qualification comprises comparing the recorded data to a welding standard or code and granting certification if the recorded data meets or exceeds the acceptance criteria of the welding standard or code. [11]

The detection device being “non-invasive” was taken to mean that the detection device does not interfere with the body motion and the vision of the user during the training exercise. [16] The “organ of vision” was broadly construed to include an eye, but also other accessories used to see objects in the workspace such as a helmet through or by which a user may see objects in the workspace. [17]

Independent claim 26 uses substantially the same language as claim 1, but is in the form of a method to be carried out using that system:

26. A computer-implemented method for training and qualification of a user performing a skill-related training exercise involving body motion in a workspace, comprising: … [12]

1) The Skilled Person and their Common General Knowledge

While not in dispute, the Board generally agreed that the skilled person would be “a trained technician capable of setting up and maintaining systems for training and qualification of a user performing skill-related training exercises.” The person would be skilled in computer-based training and qualification systems. [22-24] Although the person may not necessarily have knowledge pertaining to the welding art, they would at least be aware that there are standards and codes associated with various manual skills in industries such as welding, and would be readily able to locate the relevant standards and codes. [23-24]

2) The Inventive Concept

It was generally agreed by the Board that the inventive concept of claim 1 included (1) an input device, (2) a detection device that is positioned non-invasively with respect to the workspace, (3) where the device could measure 3D angles and spatial coordinates of reference points of the input device and organ of vision of the user, and (4) a computer for recording the data and comparing it to a welding standard or code for granting certification. [26] It is notable that the inventive concept was not limited to the skill of welding in particular. The invention would appear to lend itself to training and testing other types of manual skills. [27] As it happens, a training simulator with a dummy welding torch as an input device torch was already disclosed in the prior art. [38]

The Board also identified a list of inventive elements particular to claim 26 which include generating the 3D environment and comparing the recorded data to a standard or code, [29] but none of these particular elements came into issue. It could be said that claim 26 was directed to the same general inventive concept as in claim 1. [30]

3) Difference between the State of the Art and the Inventive Concept & 4) Obviousness

One should note that there are few references in this decision to the examiner’s reasoning behind the initial finding of obviousness. This may be due to the unorthodox process by which the applicant repeatedly submitted new and amended claims for consideration, once inappropriately, and once in response to receiving a report sent by the examiner in error. [4-9]

Two pieces of prior art were examined. The first piece, known as the Baum patent, discloses a training system that involves the use of an input device, tactile gloves, and a stereoscopic visor worn by the user that generates a 2D dynamic environment in real time which appears 3D to the user. [33] The second piece, known as the Brush patent, discloses a similar training system wherein the input device is a dummy welding torch with sensor located on the torch. [34] With respect to claim 1, the Board found four relevant differences over the claimed invention and the prior art, two of which were nonobvious.

First, unlike the prior art, the claimed invention uses a detection device to measure 3D angles and spatial coordinates of reference points relative to the input device and an organ of vision of the user. [42] This was considered to be different from the “tracking head movement” and the “tracking of general movement of the individual’s hand relative to a defined object in the environment” that was disclosed in the Baum patent. [37] The Board considered this difference to be nonobvious, noting that such a system would involve using an input device and organ of vision without being invasive to measure the 3D angle and spatial coordinate information. [48]

Second, unlike the prior art, the claimed detection device is positioned non-invasively with respect to the workspace. [42] This is in contrast to the training device in the Baum patent contains a sensor on the apparatus’s gloves, the user’s head, and the input device, which were taken to be invasive of the workspace. [39] This was found to be a nonobvious difference. [47] This arrangement would allow the input device and organ of vision to be monitored simultaneously without interference from the surroundings, and was not taught or suggested by the prior art. [47]

Third, the claimed system compares the recorded data to a standard or code. [42] None of the prior art discussed teaches to make such a comparison. [40] Nevertheless, without going into much detail, the Board was of the view that comparing the recorded data to a standard was obvious. [46]

Fourth, unlike in the prior art, in the claimed system a simulated 3D dynamic environment is computed and generated. [42] This is in contrast to the 2D images that are generated by the system disclosed in the Baum patent which only appear 3D to a user wearing a stereoscopic visor. [41] Curiously, the Board does not address this difference in its obviousness analysis. The Board might have made this omission because this was not a difference that was argued by the applicant or examiner, [36, 41] and that it was unnecessary for them to do so in any event.

The Board identified a list of differences between the method in claim 26 and the prior art, but none of these differences made its way into the obviousness analysis, and they were not argued by the applicant or the examiner. [43-45] Claim 26 was simply deemed nonobvious since claim 1 had already been found to be nonobvious, and the method in claim 26 is necessarily carried out using the system in claim 1. [50] It was also not necessary to assess the obviousness of dependent claims 2-25 and 27-46, having already determined that the independent claims were nonobvious. [51]

The Board would allow the claims, provided that a few amendments are made to address claim informalities. [53-55]

Commentary

The patent at issue in this case seems to make an attempt at capturing a shift in technology from a more hands-on, tactile form of virtual reality training systems to a more hands-off, “non-invasive” form. Interestingly, it would seem that the Board has allowed the applicant to capture this shift quite broadly, as the independent claims 1 and 26 are not limited to a specific mode of technology for achieving this non-invasiveness. The independent claims and the Board do not specify a specific means for gathering the 3D angle and spatial information other than to say that it is non-invasive to the workspace. The claims would appear to have been construed broader even still, given the Board’s comment (although it was not at issue in the case) that input device (i.e., the tool with which the user is being trained) in the claimed invention need not be limited to a welding torch.