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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 (exemplary claim for claims 10 and 17) recites:
1.An apparatus, comprising:
a processor; and a memory on which is stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify an object of interest in at least one first image of an environment captured by a wearable eyewear device during a first time period; - Mental Process
identify the object of interest in at least one second image of the environment captured by a wearable eyewear device during a second time period; - Mental Process
and
determine a pattern associated with the object of interest based on the at least one first image of the identified object of interest and the at least one second image. – Mental Process
Step Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of identifying [accessing] an object of interest in first and second image [accessing first and second conditions] and determining the pattern associated with the object, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually calculating the amount of use of each icon. This limitation is a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites one additional element, that a processor is used to perform both the steps. The processor in steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, 15-16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baig et al (US Pub. 2020/0090344).
With respect to claim 1, Baig discloses An apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory on which is stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: identify an object of interest in at least one first image of an environment captured by a wearable eyewear device during a first time period; identify the object of interest in at least one second image of the environment captured by a wearable eyewear device during a second time period, (see figure 1 for “a wearable eyewear” and paragraph 0007, wherein …method includes acquiring an earlier image “first image” and a later image “second image” and of the environment from an image stream captured by the camera….identifying later environment features located in the environment in the later image, earlier environment features located in the environment in the earlier image, and earlier object features located on the object in the earlier image “an object of interest in at least one first image”… estimating object features in the later image “identify the object of interest in at least one second image”…); and determine a pattern associated with the object of interest based on the at least one first image of the identified object of interest and the at least one second image, (see paragraph 0007, wherein …method further includes determining that the object has moved “a pattern associated with the object of interest” between the earlier image and the later image if the number of matched object features does not exceed a threshold…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Baig further discloses wherein the instructions cause the processor to: access at least one first sensed condition in the environment detected by a sensor during the first time period; access at least one second sensed condition in the environment detected by the sensor during the second time period, (see figure 3, S304 – identify later environment features “second sensed condition” located in the environment in the later image “second image”, earlier environment features “first sensed condition” located in the environment in the earlier image “first image”); and determine the pattern associated with the object of interest based also on the at least one first sensed condition and the at least one second sensed condition, (see figure 3, 314 - determine that the object has not moved between the earlier image and the later image if the number of matched object features exceeds the threshold), as claimed.
With respect to claim 8, Baig further discloses wherein the instructions cause the processor to: access additional images of the environment captured by the wearable eyewear device during additional time periods; identify the object of interest in the additional images; and update the pattern associated with the object of interest based on images of the identified object of interest in the additional images, (see paragraph 0007, wherein … The method includes acquiring an earlier image and a later image of the environment from an image stream captured [stream captured is a video of an environment i.e. additional images) by the camera…; and paragraph 0023, wherein …processor is further configured to, if the object has moved: determine a pose of the object in the later image using the actual object features in the later image and the earlier object features; and update a location of a displayed object based on the determined pose of the object), as claimed.
With respect to claim 9, Baig further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises one of the wearable eyewear device, a computing device, and a server, (see figure 1 and figure 2).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claim 1, because claim 10 is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 15 -16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claims 7-8, because claims 15-16 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 7-8.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claims 1+7, because claim 17 is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 1+7.
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.
Claims 2-6, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baig et al (US Pub. 2020/0090344) in view of Ortiz Egea et al (US 12,530,887 B2; herein after Ortiz).
With respect to claim 2, Baig discloses all the limitations as disclose in claim 1 above. However, Baig fails to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions cause the processor to: apply an artificial intelligence algorithm on the at least one first image and the at least one second image of the object of interest to determine the pattern, as claimed.
Ortiz teaches apply an artificial intelligence algorithm on the at least one first image and the at least one second image of the object of interest to determine the pattern, (see Ortiz col. 6, lines 6-8, wherein …the machines 110, 122, 124, 126 may employ any suitable combination of state-of-the-art and/or future machine learning (ML) and/or artificial intelligence (AI) techniques),
as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of tracking objects using image analysis. Teaching of Ortiz to use artificial intelligence algorithm can be incorporated into Baig as suggested (see paragraph 0078, wherein … a method other than ODPE is used which can be referred to as simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). With SLAM, the camera's pose relative to the environment is determined…), and modifying yields a human interaction system (see Ortiz col. 1, lines 13-15), for motivation.
With respect to claim 3, combination of Baig and Ortiz further discloses wherein the instructions cause the processor to: apply a machine learning algorithm on historical data to create the artificial intelligence algorithm, (see Ortiz col. 6, lines wherein … hods and processes utilized by the machines 110, 122, 124, 126 may be implemented using one or more differentiable functions, wherein a gradient of the differentiable functions may be calculated and/or estimated with regard to inputs and/or outputs of the differentiable functions (e.g., with regard to training data [training data is read as the “historical data”], and/or with regard to an objective function)…), as claimed.
With respect to claims 4 and 5 for the same reasons to combine Baig and Ortiz further discloses
wherein the instructions cause the processor to: determine an action corresponding to the determined pattern; and output and/or execute the determined action; and wherein the instructions cause the processor to: generate an item to be displayed from the determined action; and cause the item to be displayed on the wearable eyewear device, (see Ortiz figure 5, 430 computer issue action to be performed; and Baig figure 1 for HMD “displayed on the wearable eyewear device”), as claimed.
With respect to claim 6 for the same reasons to combine Baig and Ortiz further discloses wherein the instructions cause the processor to: determine the pattern associated with the object of interest as a rate at which a feature of the object of interest has changed over time based on the images of the identified object of interest during the first time period and the second time period, (see Ortiz figure 4, 404, computer analyze one or more images to identify above threshold motion “a rate at which a feature of the object of interest has changed over time”), as claimed.
Claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claims 2, 4-6, because claims 11-14 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 2, 4-6 respectively.
Claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claims 2, 4-5, because claims 18-20 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 2, 4-5 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663