DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17, 19-20, 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 21 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Dotan-Cohen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 20210374579 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 16-17, 19-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weast et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0292575 A1) in view of Dotan-Cohen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0374579 A1).
As per claim 1, Weast teaches a method (title) comprising: monitoring an environment via one or more sensors of a computing device (fig. 1 el. 100, 110; [0011], [0020-0022]; “sensor interface 110 may also be used to communicate with an array of sensors, distributed in multiple devices, such as … motion devices for recording velocity and acceleration information, cameras for recording images, audio and/or video recorders for recording sound and/or video”); determining memory experience stored in a data store based on the monitoring ([0011], [0017], [0019],[0031], [0036]; “data storage module 140 may be configured to be used by apparatus 100 to manage data storage, e.g., to store, retrieve, query, and manipulate sensor data” )creating, based on trigger data, an augmented reality memory experience, a virtual reality memory experience or a combination thereof (fig. 1 el. 160 [0019], [0033], [0038-0039]; “when a user is browsing a photo album, contextual cues associated with the browsing may become an indication that the user may like to playback part of the user experience during the time the photos are taken. Yet as another example, experience generation module 160 may make recommendations for experience creation or recreation based on contextual cues. For instance, experience generation module 160 may recommend enabling desirable physiological conditions, e.g., relaxation state after detecting the user had a stressful day.”), the trigger data comprising multiple data items and being used to detect that the memory experience is present in the data store (fig. 1 el. 130-160; [0021], [0029], [0031-0032], [0034], [0039], [0049]) by requiring at least two data items from the trigger data to at least partially match corresponding stored memory experience data to detect the memory experience is present in the data store (fig. 1, el. 130-160; [0018], [0021], [0029], [0031-0032], [0034-0039], [0049]; “ the rules identifying a user experience may be predefined or predetermined, and may be based at least on one on factor of a location, an environmental parameter, a time, a user, a user command, an object, or an activity.” The Examiner notes identifying a user experience based on the above features inherently would necessitate matching contextual information (trigger data) with a user experience); and projecting the augmented reality memory experience, the virtual reality memory experience, or the combination thereof via he computing device (fig. 1 el.160; [0018], [0038], [0045]; “experience generation module 160 may be configured to supplement the user experience with augmented reality (AR) data.”). Weast does not explicitly disclose requiring at least two data items from trigger data to at least partially match corresponding stored data with a match weight of at least a user selected weight threshold, as recited in claim 1.
However, Dotan-Cohen teaches the known concept requiring at least two data items from trigger data to at least partially match corresponding stored data with a match weight of a least a user selected weight threshold ([0026], [0068] [0070-0072],[0082-0088], “a similarity threshold is used, which may be predetermined, tunable, or adaptive, or may be initially set to a value based on a population of users or may be based on empirical information learned about the particular user, for example, and may be adaptive based on the number of historical observations. The similarity threshold may be used to determine whether a particular historical user action is “similar enough” to the particular current or recent user action so as to be considered for determining a prediction. In some embodiments, a vector representing the similarity differences (or similarity score) may be determined, for example, where multiple features are evaluated for similarity.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dotan-Cohen with Weast in order to provide improved user experiences.
As per claim 2, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohan) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Weast teaches wherein creating the augmented reality memory experience, the virtual reality memory experience, or the combination thereof, comprises transforming the trigger data into an augmented reality augmentation, a virtual reality augmentation, an avatar, an augmented reality object, a virtual reality object, a smell signal transmissible to a scent project device, a taste signal transmissible to a tasting device, a haptic force, an internet-of-things (IOT) device command, or a combination thereof ([0041], [0044-0045],[0088]).
As per claim 4, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohan) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Weast teaches wherein determining the memory experience is stored in the data comprises comparing the trigger data against memory experience data associated with the memory experience to determine whether there is a match (fig. 1, el. 130-160; [0018], [0021], [0029], [0031-0032], [0034-0039], [0049]; “ the rules identifying a user experience may be predefined or predetermined, and may be based at least on one on factor of a location, an environmental parameter, a time, a user, a user command, an object, or an activity.” The Examiner notes identifying a user experience based on the contextual information necessitates matching contextual information (trigger data) with a user experience).
As per claim 5, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohan) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 4. In addition, Weast teaches wherein the trigger data comprises a picture, a video, a sound, a biosignal, a smell signal, a taste signal, a weather condition, a location, a microlocation, a lighting condition, a time, a data, a person, a pet, a social network or a combination thereof ([0021], [0027], [0029], [0034]).
As per claim 6, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohan) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Weast teaches wherein projecting the augmented reality memory experience, the virtual reality memory experience, or the combination thereof comprises displaying an avatar, displaying a picture, displaying a video, providing a 3D navigation in a volumetric video, projecting a sound, playing music, executing an IOT command, displaying a lighting level, projecting a smell, projecting a taste transforming a biosignal into a visualization or a sound or a combination of thereof ([0011], [0041], [0044] and fig. 1 el. 160).
As per claim 7, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohan) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Weast teaches wherein the one or more sensors are disposed in a head-wearable apparatus, in a drone, in a mobile device, in a portable computing device, or a combination thereof ([0018], [0021], [0041], [0044], [0065], [0076-0077]).
As per claim 8, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohan) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Weast teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise a sound sensor, a camera sensor, a weather sensor, a light condition sensor, a location sensor, a microlocation sensor, a smell sensor, a taste sensor, a biosignal sensor, or a combination thereof ([0020], [0042] and fig. 1).
As per claim 9, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohan) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Weast discloses recording a new memory experience by capturing data comprising a picture, a video, a sound a smell signal, an taste signal, a weather condition, a location, a microlocation, a lighting condition, a person, a time, a data, a pet, a social network, a biosignal, or a combination thereof via the one or more sensors (abstract, [0021-022], [0027-0029] and fig. 1); storing the new memory experience in the data store (fig. 1 el. 140); and indexing the new memory experience by relating data associated with the new memory experience to a second trigger (fig. 1 el. 130-150) and [0032-0033],[0036-0037]).
As per claim 11, which is the corresponding system with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, Weast teaches one or more hardware processors (abstract, [0011], [0016], [0021], and fig. 4) and at least one memory associated with storing instructions that cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations (fig. 4, [0058], [0061-0063]]).
As per claim 12, which is the corresponding system with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 15, which is the corresponding system with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 9, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 9 also applies here.
As per claim 16, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohen) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 15. In addition, Weast teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that cause one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising: applying a second trigger to detect that the new memory experience is stored in the data store based on the monitoring ((fig. 1 el. 130-150; fig. 4, fig. 5 and [0032-0033],[0036-0037], [0061-0063]).
As per claim 17, which is the corresponding system with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 4, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 4 also applies here.
As per claim 19, which is the corresponding machine-readable medium storing instructions with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 20, which is the corresponding machine-readable medium storing instructions with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 9, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 9 also applies here.
As per claim 22, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohen) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Weast does not explicitly disclose wherein the match weight being higher than 0 indicates a partial match, and wherein the match weight being 100 comprises an exact match.
However, Dotan-Cohen teaches wherein the match weight being higher than 0 indicates a partial match ([0026], [0068] [0070-0072],[0082-0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dotan-Cohen with Weast in order to provide improved user experiences.
Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohen) does not explicitly disclose wherein the match weight being 100 comprises an exact match. However the Examiner takes official notice that providing the limitation as recited above and is notoriously well-known and expected in the art in order to provide an accurate measure of similarity between historical user actions and a user’s current action.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weast et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0292575 A1) in view of Dotan-Cohen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0374579 A1) and further in view of Aflaki Beni et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0144404 A1; herein referenced as “Beni”).
As per claim 3, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohen) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Weast does not explicitly disclose wherein the augmented reality augmentation, the virtual reality augmentation, or the combination thereof, comprises a three-dimensional volumetric video configured to enable a user of the computing device to view the three-dimensional volumetric video at a plurality of viewpoint depths.
However, Beni teaches wherein the augmented reality augmentation, the virtual reality augmentation, or the combination thereof, comprises a three-dimensional volumetric video configured to enable a user of the computing device to view the three-dimensional volumetric video at a plurality of viewpoint depths ([0004], [0007], [0070], [0094] and fig. 4a-4d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Beni with Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohen) for the benefit of providing improved viewing capabilities for a user.
As per claim 13, which is the corresponding system with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 13 also applies here.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weast et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0292575) and in view of Dotan-Cohen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0374579 A1) and further in view of Osman et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/005429 A1).
As per claim 10, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohan) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Weast does not explicitly disclose sending an invitation to a plurality of participants to share the augmented reality memory experience, the virtual reality memory experience, or the combination thereof; and sharing the augmented reality memory experience, the virtual memory experience, or the combination thereof, with one or more participants of the plurality of participants that accept the invitation.
However, Osman teaches sending an invitation to a plurality of participants to share the augmented reality memory experience, the virtual reality memory experience, or the combination thereof (fig. 4); and sharing the augmented reality memory experience, the virtual memory experience, or the combination thereof, with one or more participants of the plurality of participants that accept the invitation (fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Osman with Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohen) in order to provide an opportunity to incorporate social and inter-personal components to enhance and humanize the VR consumer experience.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weast et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0292575 A1) in view of Dotan-Cohen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0374579 A1) in view of Aflaki Beni et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/014404 A1; herein referenced as “Beni”) and further in view of Kim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0073831 A1).
As per claim 14, Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohen and Beni) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 13. Weast does not explicitly discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprises a plurality of camera sensors disposed in a head-wearable apparatus in a mobile device, in a drone, in a portable computing device, or in a combination thereof, and wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising capturing a plurality of video frames via the plurality of camera sensors.
However, Kim teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprises a plurality of camera sensors disposed in a head-wearable apparatus in a mobile device, in a drone, in a portable computing device, or in a combination thereof, and wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising capturing a plurality of video frames via the plurality of camera sensors ([0008], [0040-0041], [0077-0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim with Weast (modified by Dotan-Cohen) in order to provide a novel electronic system that accommodates a user interaction designer to construct and configure a mixed-reality (MR) environment and various potential user interactivities for a geographic landmark, a museum, or another tourist destination, and subsequently share the MR environment with other user interaction designers and users (e.g. tourists) who visit that tourist destination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, 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, Jamie Atala can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486