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 .
Respond to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 – 10, 12 – 19, 31, 46 – 48 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 1, 16 and 31 are amended.
Claim 46 – 48 are new.
Respond to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection with prior art 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.
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.
Claim 10, 47 – 48 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 10 recites the limitation "the anchored location or device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the examination purpose, the term is interpreted as any location or device.
Claim 47 and 48 recite the limitation "compass direction corresponds to a single direction directly from a current position of the electronic device to an anchored location/device" and are not clear. The term “compass direction" is not defined in the specification and since no examples presented in the specification or drawings, the plane meaning of the term is interpreted as “a global reference direction 215 (e.g., true north) in the physical environment” as described in 0040 of the specification of the instant application. Based on this interpretation, it is not clear to ordinary skilled in the art how this global direction can correspond to another anchor location or device except the true north, especially when considering the applicants remarks filed on 2/27/2026, the direction is “not navigation/rout guidance” to a specific device/location but an “orientation cue”. Further clarification is required.
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 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.
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.
Claim 1, 6 – 7, 9 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 31, 46 – 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kozloski et al., (hereinafter Kozloski) US20150019126 in view of USBR, “Visitor Center Policy, Directive and Standard, and Guidelines”.
Kozloski teaches a system comprising personal electronic devices that detects and assists user when the user is lost or unfamiliar with the its location.
USBR teaches that the first time visitors are unfamiliar with sites and its the visitors “bill of rights” to easily find the orientation of the site.
Regarding Claim 1 Kozloski discloses: A method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor and one or more sensors (fig. 1A, 1B, mobile device 112 ):
obtaining sensor data from the one or more sensors of the electronic device in a physical environment (0025, “GPS” that provide the physical location of device/user);
detecting a context associated with a use of the electronic device based on the sensor data and historical use of the electronic device in the physical environment (0028, “user. The method 200 may track the user's current position in step 204 as the user travels, and may identify and track the user's travel pattern (historical use of the device in the environment) … indicate that the user is lost and/or unfamiliar (context) with the user's surroundings.”);
determining whether to present a directional awareness indicator based on the context associated with the use of the electronic device in the physical environment (refer to the mapping above & Fig. 2, 0031, “in step 212 to assist the user to take corrective action or to avoid getting lost any further ( or with finding a path to the destination (directional awareness indicator)).”); and
in accordance with determining to present the directional awareness indicator, identifying a direction for the directional awareness indicator … presenting the directional awareness indicator based on the identified direction (refer to the mapping above, path is a direction that indicate to the user & 0026, “It may convey information to the user through various means including, without limitation, digital screens and/or audio channels.”).
Kozloski does not explicitly teach:
detecting the context comprises determining use of the electronic device in a new location
wherein the direction corresponds to a compass direction
Kozloski, In combination with USBR, renders obviousness that:
detecting the context comprises determining use of the electronic device in a new location … wherein the direction corresponds to a compass direction (USBR, page 7, “first-time visitors who are unfamiliar with an area and who wish to learn information about facilities, recreation opportunities, and the cultural and natural resources of an area”, page 57, “Visitors’ Bill of Right … Orientation (compass direction): Make it easy for me to find my way around”; page 61, “the ‘content’ relates to the specific message(s) of the interpretation and should consider such things as accuracy of information, authenticity, and interest to visitors … maps”; Kozloski teaches using the historic records and current context to detect that a user is not familiar with an area, USBR teaches that new location is an indication that an user is not familiar with the area and would need information/orientation assistance. The combination renders obviousness of the claimed limitation; Examiner further notes that site maps and navigation maps are commonly denoted with compass direction to enhance the orientation understanding of viewer (see below illustration for examples). Showing digital compass on personal device based on the 3D positions of a personal device is also widely available technology (see below illustration for examples). Thus, the combination has reasonable likelihood of success.)
PNG
media_image1.png
1258
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
891
1189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1030
882
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1467
1231
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kozloski and USBR both teach information assistance for people and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the details of information assistance requirement at new location taught by USBR in the system of Kozloski to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to enhance user experiences (USBR, page 57).
Regarding Claim 6, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: the directional awareness indicator is presented intermittently (Kozloski, 0033, “the probability that the user is lost has exceeded a first threshold value 312, and that the user is in need of corrective data,”; 0036, “user is unfamiliar with parts … of the route to be taken”; i.e., a route can involve section that needs assistance and section that does not need assistance. Thus, intermittently.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 6. The combination further teach: presenting the directional awareness indicator intermittently is based on movement of the electronic device (refer to the mapping in Claim 6, the assistant is needed based on the user/device moving into different section of the route).
Regarding Claim 9, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: in accordance with detecting a request to stop presenting the directional awareness indicator, ceasing to present the directional awareness indicator (Kozloski, 0025 “a device may have a display and one or more physical or virtual keys that control and direct its functionality, and many of its features and functions may be configurable by a user.”; i.e., user can control the operation of the device through UI).
Regarding Claim 10, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: modifying the directional awareness indicator over time based on proximity of the electronic device to the anchored location or device (refer to the mapping in Claim 1. The compass direction is updated with the proximate direction of the electronic device to the true north).
Regarding Claim 12, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: detecting the context comprises determining use of the electronic device during a type of activity (refer to the mapping in Claim 1, the system determines the users location during its location changed/moved (activity)).
Regarding Claim 13, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: detecting the context comprises determining that a user of the electronic device is disoriented or lost (Kozloski, 0004, “A system for providing navigational support … monitor a user's travel pattern and current position on a map, determine a probability that the user is lost based on the user's travel pattern and current position, and provide the user with a plurality of corrective data if the probability that the user is lost exceeds a threshold, for aiding the user in taking a corrective action or to avoid getting lost.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: detecting the context comprises determining that the electronic device is within a proximity threshold distance of a location, an object, another electronic device, or a person (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 system detects that a user enters a new location/leave known location for a distance (threshold) to determine if assistance is needed).
Claim 16 is the corresponding device claim of Claim 1. Kozloski and USBR combination further teach: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the device to perform operations (Kozloski, 0017, “computer system-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by the computer system 10.”). Claim 16 is rejected with same reason.
Claim 31 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claims 16 and thus rejected with same reason.
Claim 46, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: the compass direction is a cardinal direction (refer to the mapping and illustration in Claim 1, The orientation/compass direction is cardinal direction).
Claim 47 Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: the compass direction corresponds to a single direction directly from a current position of the electronic device to an anchored location (refer to the mapping in Claim 1, “true north” is the location).
Claim 2, 4 – 5, 8, 15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kozloski et al., (hereinafter Kozloski) US20150019126 in view of USBR, “Visitor Center Policy, Directive and Standard, and Guidelines” as applied to Claim1 and further in view of IL et al., (hereinafter IL), KR 20200134401.
Regarding Claim 2, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach: presenting the directional awareness indicator is further based on a three-dimensional (3D) position relative to the electronic device.
IL in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach: presenting the directional awareness indicator is further based on a three-dimensional (3D) position relative to the electronic device (IL translation page 9, “Based on such sensing data, the application can determine the user's location in the direction, speed, and altitude, such as east, west, north, south, etc., and a 3D compass function can be provided, guiding the current location and target point”, fig. 3 – 8 are example screens which illustrate the capability of the system including the capability of showing site map, compass direction, navigation etc.).
Kozloski (in view of USBR) and IL both teach personal devices for locational assistance and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the directional indicator considering the 3D position of the device taught by IL in the system of Kozloski (in view of USBR) to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to improve the real-time situation such as moving direction and speed, the direction the user is looking at (IL translation page 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Kozloski (in view of USBR and IL) combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 2. The combination further teach: the directional awareness indicator is a visual cue positioned to appear at the 3D position in a view of the physical environment provided via the electronic device, wherein the 3D position is determined based on the identified direction (refer to the mapping in Claim 2 & at least IL fig. 6 – 7 the direction and compass are the visual cue of the identified direction that appears based on the 3D position through the view of the user).
Regarding Claim 5, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach: the directional awareness indicator is not presented based on a criterion with respect to the detected context associated with the use of the electronic device in the physical environment.
IL in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach: the directional awareness indicator is not presented based on a criterion with respect to the detected context associated with the use of the electronic device in the physical environment (IL, translation page 3, “displays an image according to an operation mode in real time”; i.e., the assistant device can operate in different mode and depending on the selected mode (criterion). In this case, the device maybe performing other function and not showing compass direction based on the new location).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the multi-mode operation taught by IL in the system of Kozloski (in view of USBR) to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to increase the usability of the device (IL translation page 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 6. The combination further teach: presenting the directional awareness indicator intermittently is based on historical use of the directional awareness indicator with respect to the device (refer to the mapping in Claim 6 – 7, the determination is based on the detection of new location, thus historical use; )
The combination does not explicitly teach: with respect to a three-dimensional (3D) position
IL in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach: with respect to a three-dimensional (3D) position (IL translation page 9, “3D compass function”; i.e., the compass direction is presented based on the three dimensional position of the glasses)
The reason for combination is same as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15, Kozloski and USBR combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach: the electronic device is a head-mounted device (HMD).
IL in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach: the electronic device is a head-mounted device (HMD) (Fig. 3 – 6, the VR glasses is head-mounted device).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 2.
Claim 17, 19 are the corresponding device claim of Claim 2, 4 and thus are rejected with same reason.
Claim(s) 3, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kozloski et al., (hereinafter Kozloski) US20150019126 in view of USBR, “Visitor Center Policy, Directive and Standard, and Guidelines”, IL et al., (hereinafter IL), KR 20200134401 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shigeoka et al., (hereinafter Shigeoka), US12264931.
Regarding Claim 3, Kozloski, USBR and IL combination teaches all the limitation of claim 2. The combination does not explicitly teach: the directional awareness indicator comprises an audio cue played to be heard from the 3D position using spatial audio, wherein the 3D position is determined based on the identified direction.
Shigeoka, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
the directional awareness indicator comprises an audio cue played to be heard from the 3D position using spatial audio, wherein the 3D position is determined based on the identified direction (Shigeoka, col. 1 – 2, “head-worn device (e.g., smart glasses) that is capable of providing audible navigation assistance”, “detected object is determined to be within a travel path of the user or is within a ‘medium’ distance to the user”, “the device produces an audio signal that is associated with the object, and spatially renders the audio signal at a virtual sound source in the reproduced sound field”; system detect obstacle based on the traveling path (identified direction) and make 3D spatial audio alert).
Kozloski (in view of USBR and IL) and Shigeoka both teach audio system in navigation application and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the spatial audio implantation of Shigeoka’s teaching in the system of Kozloski (in view of USBR and IL) to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order for “provide instructions and map data during vehicle navigation as well as walking navigation” (Shigeoka Col. 1) and “provide the user a better audible representation of the object” (Shigeoka Col. 2).
Claim 18 is the corresponding device claim of Claim 3 thus is rejected with the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Sink et al., US20180080774, which teaches the method and user wearable device for detecting user context and assist navigation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached on 571-270-5442. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/16/26
Prosecution Insights