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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on ----11/3/2025 for application 18/594,032. Claim 1 – 10, 12 – 19 and 31 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 1, 16 and 31 are amended.
Claim 11 is canceled.
Respond to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Respond to Argument
Applicant's remark filed on 11/3/2025 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that “the cited portions from Sink describe using travel itineraries, calendar entries, account or profile preferences, and generalized recommendation logic to filter and display destinations and services. Sink’s system concerns server-side or account-level information and content filtering, not historical use of the same device in the same physical environment as derived from the device's own sensor data. Claim 1, as amended, requires a decision step—determining whether to present the indicator—based on the detected context. Thus, the cited portions of Sink do not specifically teach or suggest “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,” where “detecting the context comprises determining use of the device in a new location,” (emphasis added) as encompassed by independent claim 1, as amended.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that “The transitional term ‘comprising’, which is synonymous with ‘including,’ ‘containing,’ or ‘characterized by,’ is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps” (MPEP2111.03). In this case, Sink teaches an wearable recommendation device that based on context (location, history, calendar etc.) to present a directional awareness indicator. Thus, Sink reference along fulfill the recited limitation. The combination with Caralis further add user’s interest to the context and so that the system, when detect that the user never wear the device at the current location (new location), can still perform proper recommendation. Thus, the combination renders obviousness of the cited limitation. Examiner further notes that the wearable device of Sink are designed to adapt to the field of view and the location of the user while the user is traveling and display contents based on the detected location (see at least 0015 of Sink). Even though Sink does not use the term “new location”, the term “new location”, within reasonable interpretation, can also be interpret as “the user has arrived at an airport” (Sink 0015) or “the user has arrived at his or her gate” (Sink 0092). In these cases, the user’s location is new/different than his/her old location 10 minutes ago and is new/different than his/her old location before leaving home. Thus, within reasonable interpretation, Sink reference alone can fulfill the claimed limitation as well.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
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 – 2, 4 – 10, 12, 14 – 17, 19, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over by Sink et al., (hereinafter Sink) US20180080774, in view of Caralis et al., (hereinafter Caralis), US20130150086.
Regarding Claim 1 Sink discloses: A method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor and one or more sensors (Fig. 3A, 3B, sensors in a wearable electronic device):
obtaining sensor data from the one or more sensors of the electronic device in a physical environment (0015, “the system can recognize, based on location information from the augmented reality device or a user's mobile device that the user has arrived at an airport terminal. Using data from the user's digital calendar, along with data about the individual from a travel app hosted by an airline or other travel conveyor, along with other travel software, the disclosed system and methods can further determine that the individual has an upcoming flight. Upon the individual's arrival, the disclosed systems and methods can use available information about the upcoming flight and the present check-in status of the individual to direct the individual to the appropriate check-in kiosk, customer service or ticketing counter or boarding gate.”; fig. 3A, location information is from the GPS sensor of the device);
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 (refer to the mapping above, the user/device location can be determined by sensor; 0090, “the previous information that the user has already eaten, provide data to augmented reality system 140 that does not include restaurant locations or recommendations.”; i.e., if the user/device has stayed/stopped at restaurant, the user is likely has eaten and the system display different recommendations);
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 & 0077, “FIG. 4A is an exemplary augmented view from an augmented reality device (e.g., device 390 from FIG. 3 or augmented reality device 145 from FIG. 1) to navigate (with directional awareness indicator) through a crowded airport terminal.” The navigation information is directional awareness indicator); and
in accordance with determining to present the directional awareness indicator, identifying a direction for the directional awareness indicator, wherein the direction corresponds to a cardinal direction or a direction towards an anchored location or an anchored device, and presenting the directional awareness indicator based on the identified direction (0079, “augmented view 400 can represent graphical overlays on viewport 391 resulting in the augmented reality view.”, “the augmented elements of augmented view can include navigation path” navigation path is a direction towards a destination (anchored location); fig. 4A shows cues of shops, money exchange and restroom on the 3D space. These cues are also directional awareness indicator towards their recommended location (anchored location)).
Sink does not explicitly teach:
detecting the context comprises determining use of the electronic device in a new location
Caralis, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach: detecting the context comprises determining use of the electronic device in a new location (Caralis, 0024, “a place graph can be generated from multiple inputs, including general information about the physical locations and user inputs”, “The recommendation system can … generate a place graph for a particular user in a particular location. The algorithms used by the recommendation system allow for real-time projection of a user's implicit and explicit interactions in one location to be projected onto a new location to produce recommendations relevant to both the user's demonstrated interests and the venues ( e.g., restaurants, entertainment events, etc.) available in the new location.”; i.e., the system determines that the user is in new location and generate recommendation for the new location).
Sink and Caralis both teach audio system in VR 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 new location determination of Caralis’s teaching in the system of Sink to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order for the user to receive recommendation even for the location that the user never been to (Caralis, 0024).
Regarding Claim 2, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. Sink further teach: presenting the directional awareness indicator is further based on a three-dimensional (3D) position relative to the electronic device (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & fig. 4A, the locations, path, and objects in the view are 3 dimensional in relation to the viewing device).
Regarding Claim 4, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 2. Sink 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 1 & 2 & fig. 4A, the bathroom cue, duty free shop cue etc. are displayed in 3D position in the view.).
Regarding Claim 5, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. Sink further 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 (Fig. 4A & 0088, “augmented reality system 140 can further use profile information for the user to determine that the user only eats at The Galley Diner while in this particular airport. Accordingly, using this profile information, augmented reality system 140 can filter the information and provide only the locations for The Galley Diner and no other restaurant information to augmented reality device 145”; fig. 4, the shops/restaurants are cued with its direction, the system do not display any other restaurant other than Galley Diner based on the user’s profile (criterion)).
Regarding Claim 6, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. Sink further teach: the directional awareness indicator is presented intermittently (Fig. 4A & 0053 – 0054, “augmented reality device 390 can include a viewport 391 that the wearer can look through.”, “display device 390 can provide augmented graphical elements (directional awareness indicator) to be shown in the wearer's field of view.”; the graphical elements are presented when the restaurant, restroom and the location of interest are in the field of view. When the user look away, some graphical elements for the location that are out of the field of view stops showing until they are back in the field of view again).
Regarding Claim 7, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 6. Sink further teach: presenting the directional awareness indicator intermittently is based on movement of the electronic device (refer to the mapping in Claim 6, the display of graphical element is based on the movement of the device which determines the field of view ).
Regarding Claim 8, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 6. Sink further teach: presenting the directional awareness indicator intermittently is based on historical use of the directional awareness indicator with respect to the 3D position (0090, “the previous information that the user has already eaten, provide data to augmented reality system 140 that does not include restaurant locations or recommendations.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. Sink further teach: in accordance with detecting a request to stop presenting the directional awareness indicator, ceasing to present the directional awareness indicator (0044, “user interface API can provide the application with the functionality to create and manage augmented interface controls, such as overlays; receive input via camera 324, microphone 322, or input device 307; and other functionality intended for display through display subsystem 310. Furthermore, a camera service API can allow for the capture of video through camera 324 for purposes of capturing image data such as an image or video data that can be processed and used for providing augmentation through display subsystem 310.” Through user interface, user controls whether to display augmented information or not).
Regarding Claim 10, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. Sink further teach: modifying the directional awareness indicator over time based on proximity of the electronic device to the anchored location or device (Fig. 4A & 0053 – 0054, “augmented reality device 390 can include a viewport 391 that the wearer can look through.”, “display device 390 can provide augmented graphical elements (directional awareness indicator) to be shown in the wearer's field of view.” With the user traveling along a path to the destination (anchored location) over time (proximity closer to the destination), the indicator changes/modifies based on the field of view of the device).
Regarding Claim 12, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. Sink 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 that the user arrives at airport and have a scheduled travel (activity)).
Regarding Claim 14, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. Sink 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 & 0015, system recognize that the device arrives at (close enough to) an airport terminal).
Regarding Claim 15, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation in Claim 1. Sink further teach: the electronic device is a head-mounted device (HMD) (Fig. 3B, the VR glasses is head-mounted device).
Claim 16 – 17, 19 are the corresponding device claim of Claim 1 – 2, 4. Sink 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 (Fig. 3A – 3B, exemplary augmented reality device that consist of operation system and application program stored in memory and executed by processor). These claims are 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(s) 3, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Sink et al., (hereinafter Sink) US20180080774 in view of Caralis et al., (hereinafter Caralis), US20130150086 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shigeoka et al., (hereinafter Shigeoka), US12264931.
Regarding Claim 3, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation of claim 2. Sink 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).
Sink (in view of Caralis) 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 Sink (in view of Caralis) 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.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Sink et al., (hereinafter Sink) US20180080774 in view of Caralis et al., (hereinafter Caralis), US20130150086 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kozloski et al., (hereinafter Kozloski), US20150019126.
Regarding Claim 13, Sink and Caralis combination teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Sink does not explicitly teach: detecting the context comprises determining that a user of the electronic device is disoriented or lost.
Kozloski, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly 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.”).
Sink (in view of Caralis) and Kozloski both teach navigation support 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 lost detection of Kozloski’s teaching in the system of Sink (in view of Caralis) to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order “for aiding the user in taking a corrective action or to avoid getting lost” (Kozloski, 0003).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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) 270-5227. 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
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights