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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7, 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the advertised position" in line 11.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the advertised orientation" in line 11.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the advertised gesture" in line 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the advertised height" in line 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the advertised position" in line 11.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the advertised orientation" in line 11.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the advertised gesture" in line 7.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the advertised height" in line 10.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the advertised position" in line 11.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowburn ‘529 (U.S. Publication 2021/0241529) in view of Cowburn ‘075 (U.S. Publication 2021/0303075) and Osman (U.S. Publication 2018/0005429).
As to claim 1, Cowburn ‘529 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a first communication device, a message indicating availability of a second communication device for a communication session (fig. 5, elements 502 and 503; p. 6, sections 0062-0064; a second device receives a request to join an AR communication session, which would indicate availability, from a first device; it is noted that “first” and “second” devices are swapped in this reference, with the second device receiving the message; however, this is merely a labeling difference and the “second device” in the reference corresponds to the “first device” in the claims since the “second device” in the reference performs the functions of the “first device” in the claims),
receiving, at the first communication device, image data corresponding to an image of a scene including a candidate communication device (p. 6, sections 0063-0065; image data including a first user holding the first device, which reads on a candidate communication device since it is potentially joining the communication session, is received/obtained at the second device, which as noted above corresponds to the claimed first device, via camera);
Cowburn ‘529 does not disclose, but Cowburn ‘075 discloses the message including identifying information that represents a current pose of the second communication device or a user of the second communication device (fig. 6, elements 604 and 606; p. 7, section 0076; p. 8, sections 0084-0088; the first device receives a message from the second with identifying information that captures motion information including current and previous user poses) and determining, at the first communication device, that the second communication device is the candidate communication device based on the identifying information and the image data (fig. 6, elements 608 and 610; p. 8, sections 0084-0088; the first device determines whether the pose/motion identifying information matches captured images in video form in order to determine whether the device is the matching candidate device to join an AR session). The motivation for this is to establish which client devices are participants in a shared virtual space such as a racing game (p. 1, sections 0016-0018). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cowburn ‘529 to use a message including identifying information that represents a current pose of the second communication device or a user of the second communication device and determine, at the first communication device, that the second communication device is the candidate communication device based on the identifying information and the image data in order to establish which client devices are participants in a shared virtual space such as a racing game as taught by Cowburn ‘075.
Cowburn ‘529 does not disclose, but Osman discloses updating, at the first communication device, a graphical user interface depicting the candidate communication device to indicate that the candidate communication device is available for the communication session indicated in the message (fig. 8a; p. 7, sections 0077-0078; a representation of the nearby available candidate communication device in text form as showing “Player 2 is nearby” is displayed and can be selected by the first user) and sending, from the first communication device, a request to join the communication session in response to receiving a selection of the candidate communication device (p. 7, sections 0077-0078; if the prompt is selected, a request to the second player to join a VR/XR session is sent). The motivation for this is to allow for interaction between the avatars of co-located users within a VR environment (p. 1, section 0004). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cowburn ‘529 and Cowburn ‘075 to update, at the first communication device, a graphical user interface depicting the candidate communication device to indicate that the candidate communication device is available for the communication session indicated in the message and send, from the first communication device, a request to join the communication session in response to receiving a selection of the candidate communication device in order to allow for interaction between the avatars of co-located users within a VR environment as taught by Osman.
As to claim 2, Cowburn ‘529 discloses wherein the communication session corresponds to a shared extended reality experience (p. 6, sections 0063-0065; a shared augmented reality experience, which reads on a shared extended reality experience, is described).
As to claim 6, Cowburn ‘529 does not disclose but Cowburn ‘075 discloses wherein the current pose includes a gesture of a user of the second communication device (p. 8, sections 0084-0088), and wherein determining the second communication device is the candidate communication device based on the identifying information and the image data includes: determining a candidate gesture of a user of the candidate communication device based on the image data; and matching the candidate gesture to the advertised gesture (p. 8, sections 0084-0088; an observed gesture, which reads on a candidate gesture, is determined from video frame images; the observed/candidate gesture is matched to a gesture from sensor data, which reads on an advertised gesture, since it is offered/advertised from a second client device to a first for analysis). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 10, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Cowburn ‘529 discloses a computer readable storage device storing instructions executable by one or more processors (p. 11, sections 0093-0096).
As to claim 11, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 15, see the rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 19, see the rejections to claims 1 and 10.
Claims 3-5, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowburn ‘529 in view of Cowburn ‘075 and Osman and further in view of Angelakos (U.S. Publication 2020/0057888).
As to claim 3, Cowburn ‘529 does not disclose, but Cowburn ‘075 discloses wherein the current pose includes a position of the second communication device in a reference coordinate system (p. 6, section 0068; p. 7, section 0076-0077; p. 8, sections 0087 and 0094; p. 9, section 0101; positions/locations and orientations of the devices in a GPS coordinate system are detected),
and wherein determining that the second communication device is the candidate communication device based on the identifying information and the image data includes determining a local position of the first communication device in the reference coordinate system (p. 6, section 0068; p. 7, section 0076-0077; p. 8, sections 0087 and 0094; p. 9, section 0101; positions/locations of the devices in a GPS coordinate system are detected). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 1.
Cowburn ‘529 in view of Cowburn ‘075 does not disclose, but Angelakos discloses determining a relative position of the candidate communication device with respect to the first communication device based on the image data (p. 2-3, section 0042; p. 4, section 0059-p. 5, section 0060; p. 5, sections 0067-0069; p. 7, sections 0092-0093; based on an obtained image, the position of a device that may match positions, reading on a candidate device, with a reference first device is determined; if the image characteristics are the correct ones, the position of the candidate device is determined to be the same or similar relative to the reference first device);
determining a candidate position of the candidate communication device in the reference coordinate system based on the local position and the relative position and matching the candidate position to the advertised position (p. 7, sections 0086-0087; a candidate device advertises that it is in a position similar to the local position of the reference imaging first device when it created the image, and the determined position relative to the reference first device described above, obtained via image, confirms the match). The motivation for this is to verify a device’s location in a manner that avoids being fooled by fraudulent location data (p. 3, section 0044). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cowburn ‘529, Cowburn ‘075, and Osman to determine a relative position of the candidate communication device with respect to the first communication device based on the image data, determine a candidate position of the candidate communication device in the reference coordinate system based on the local position and the relative position and match the candidate position to the advertised position in order to verify a device’s location in a manner that avoids being fooled by fraudulent location data as taught by Angelakos.
As to claim 4, Cowburn ‘529 does not disclose, but Cowburn ‘075 discloses wherein the reference coordinate system corresponds to a global coordinate system, and wherein the local position is determined based on global positioning system device included in the first communication device (p. 6, section 0068; p. 7, section 0076-0077; p. 8, sections 0087 and 0094; p. 9, section 0101; local positions/locations of the devices in a GPS coordinate system are detected). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 5, Cowburn ‘529 does not disclose, but Cowburn ‘075 discloses wherein the current pose includes an orientation of the second communication device in a reference coordinate system (p. 6, section 0068; p. 7, section 0076-0077; p. 8, sections 0087 and 0094; p. 9, section 0101; positions/locations and orientations of the devices in a GPS coordinate system are detected),
and wherein determining that the second communication device is the candidate communication device based on the identifying information and the image data includes determining a local orientation of the first communication device in the reference coordinate system (p. 6, section 0068; p. 7, section 0076-0077; p. 8, sections 0087 and 0094; p. 9, section 0101; positions/locations and orientations of the devices in a GPS coordinate system are detected). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 1.
Cowburn ‘529 in view of Cowburn ‘075 does not disclose, but Angelakos discloses determining a relative orientation of the candidate communication device with respect to the first communication device based on the image data (p. 2-3, sections 0042-0043; p. 4, section 0059-p. 5, section 0060; p. 5, sections 0067-0069; p. 7, sections 0092-0093; based on an obtained image, the orientation of a device that may match orientations, reading on a candidate device, with a reference first device is determined; if the image characteristics are the correct ones, the orientation of the candidate device is determined to be the same or similar relative to the reference first device);
determining a candidate orientation of the candidate communication device in the reference coordinate system based on the local orientation and the relative orientation; and matching the candidate orientation to the advertised orientation (p. 7, sections 0086-0091; a candidate device advertises that it is in an orientation similar to the local orientation of the reference imaging first device when it created the image, and the determined orientation relative to the reference first device described above, obtained via image, confirms the match). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 12, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 13, see the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 14, see the rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 20, see the rejection to claim 3.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowburn ‘529 in view of Cowburn ‘075 and Osman and further in view of Crausaz (U.S. Patent 10,362,121) and Park (U.S. Publication 2019/0237078).
As to claim 8, Cowburn ‘529 does not disclose, but Crausaz discloses wherein the identifying information includes an advertised sound signature, and wherein determining the second communication device is the candidate communication device based on the identifying information and the image data includes: detecting the advertised sound signature; determining a source of the detected advertised sound signature; determining a relative location of the candidate communication device to the first communication device based on the image data; and matching the source to the relative location (col. 5, lines 4-44; based on a location and image corresponding to the location of the user, a voice/sound signature is additionally detected and compared to a prestored/advertised signature, and used to match a user’s mobile device’s relative location as compared to a first endpoint communication device; since the user device is only ascertained to be relevant to the endpoint device after data is analyzed, the device reads on a candidate device). The motivation for this to determine which communication resources to use for a user (col. 1, lines 10-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cowburn ‘529, Cowburn ‘075, and Osman to perform a method wherein the identifying information include an advertised sound signature, and wherein determining the second communication device is the candidate communication device based on the identifying information and the image data includes: detecting the advertised sound signature; determining a source of the detected advertised sound signature; determining a relative location of the candidate communication device to the first communication device based on the image data; and matching the source to the relative location in order to determine which communication resources to use for a user as taught by Crausaz.
Crausaz does not disclose, but Park discloses that the source corresponds to a source direction (p. 4, sections 0085-0087; the location of the user is verified by the sound source direction). The motivation for this is to track a user accurately. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cowburn ‘529, Cowburn ‘075, Osman, and Crausaz to have the source correspond to a source direction in order to track a user accurately as taught by Park.
As to claim 9, Cowburn ‘529 does not disclose, but Crausaz discloses wherein the advertised sound signature corresponds to a vocal fingerprint of a user of the second communication device (col. 5, lines 4-44; the vocal signature/fingerprint of the user is used). Motivation for the combination of references is given in the rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 17, see the rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 18, see the rejection to claim 9.
Conclusion
Claims 7 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights