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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “an image sensor and analysis module” should read “an image sensor and the analysis module” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 recites “visually representing at least one characteristic of the electronically steerable antenna in a display of the augmented reality device” which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for visually representing the antenna orientation/axis (see paras. [0045-0046]), does not reasonably provide enablement for any characteristic of the antenna without bounds. For example, the antenna has many additional characteristics such as size, color, texture, material, specific parts used, capability, etc., that are encompassed by the claim, but are not taught by Applicant’s disclosure to be visually representable. Therefore, the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In this case, in analyzing the relevant Wands factors:
Breadth of the claims – The claims are much broader than the disclosed invention, in terms of clearly specifying what characteristic is visually represented.
Nature of the invention – Augmented reality can be used to visually represent nearly anything, in some form or fashion, but the number of characteristics actually disclosed by Applicant to be visually represented is very small.
Level of one of ordinary skill – The level of skill in this case is very high and would require a high degree of knowledge in multiple field, including electrical and computer engineering and graphic design.
Amount of direction provided by the inventor – Applicant only provides direction for visually representing the orientation/axis of the antenna.
Existence of working examples – No working examples are known or offered by Applicant.
Claim 17 is similarly rejected, and dependent claims 2-16 and 18-32 fail to cure the deficiency.
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.
Claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the augmented reality device visually represents at least one characteristic of the electronically steerable antenna in the augmented reality display” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the limitation is a structural limitation of the augmented reality device, a functional limitation, or a method step of actually representing the characteristic, causing the patentable weight of the recitation to be unclear. Claim 25 is likewise rejected for the recitation of “wherein the augmented reality display visually indicates when the antenna axis is aligned.” Dependent claims 18-24 and 26-32 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 19 recites “the comparing comprises” which is indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-9 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (“Estimation of Antenna Pose in the Earth Frame Using Camera and IMU Data from Mobile Phones”, College of Computer Science and Technology, 7 April 2017), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for use of augmented reality for visualization of an electronically steerable antenna (abstract; as shown in fig. 17), comprising:
determining a device location of an augmented reality device relative to Earth (sec. 3.1, regarding the directions of gravity and magnetic north at a given point on Earth define the Earth frame (EF) in that location);
resolving a device orientation of the augmented reality device relative to Earth (sec. 3.1, regarding the accelerometer and magnetometer sensors of the IMU respond to the gravitational force and magnetic flux, yielding their projections onto the sensor axes);
identifying an electronically steerable antenna from sensor data of a field of view of a sensor of the augmented reality device (sec. 3.1, regarding it is reasonable to assume a known 3D antenna geometry once we have identified the antenna type from the acquired images);
ascertaining an antenna location and an antenna orientation of the electronically steerable antenna based on the sensor data, wherein the antenna location and the antenna orientation are provided relative to the field of view of the sensor of the augmented reality device (sec. 3.2, regarding using the antenna model and images obtained from calibrated viewpoints, we estimate the relative pose between the antenna frame and the camera frame for each viewpoint); and
visually representing at least one characteristic of the electronically steerable antenna in a display of the augmented reality device based on the ascertained antenna location and the antenna orientation (sec. 3.2, regarding we concatenate the antenna pose in the camera frame and the IMU orientation in each viewpoint with the relative camera-IMU rotation from (1) to obtain the antenna rotation in the Earth frame; see also fig. 17).
Regarding claim 2, Kang discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the identifying includes: referencing known antenna morphology information for one or more reference antennas (sec. 3.1, regarding the number of different antenna types in use is quite limited, and therefore, it is reasonable to assume a known 3D antenna geometry once we have identified the antenna type from the acquired images); and comparing the sensor data obtained by the sensor of the augmented reality device to the known antenna morphology information to identify the electronically steerable antenna within the field of view of the sensor (see again sec. 3.1).
Regarding claim 3, Kang discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the sensor comprises an image sensor (as shown in fig. 3) and the comparing comprises applying an image analysis model to identify the electronically steerable antenna (see again sec. 3.1).
Regarding claim 4, Kang discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the identifying includes: recognizing markers disposed at known positions on the electronically steerable antenna (as shown in fig. 11).
Regarding claim 5, Kang discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the field of view of the sensor is known relative to the device orientation of the augmented reality device (as shown in fig. 11); the ascertaining includes resolving a distance between the augmented reality device and the electronically steerable antenna (as shown in fig. 11); and the antenna location is determined based on the distance, the device location, and the device orientation (sec. 3.1, regarding the other important half of the multi-view data consists of the IMU measurements, which encode the orientations of the IMU in the Earth frame (EF) when the images were captured; the directions of gravity and magnetic north at a given point on Earth define EF in that location).
Regarding claim 6, Kang discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the sensor comprises an image sensor (as shown in fig. 3) and the ascertaining comprises applying an image analysis model to identify the antenna location and the antenna orientation of the electronically steerable antenna (as shown in figs. 11 and 17).
Regarding claim 7, Kang discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one characteristic includes: an antenna axis of the electronically steerable antenna (as shown in fig. 16); and a target orientation line corresponding to a desired antenna orientation (as shown in fig. 16).
Regarding claim 8, Kang discloses the invention in claim 7, and further discloses wherein the target orientation line is based on the antenna location (as shown in fig. 16).
Regarding claim 9, Kang discloses the invention in claim 7, and further discloses the invention further comprising: visually indicating in the display when the antenna axis is aligned with the target orientation line (as shown in figs. 16-17).
Regarding claim 17, Kang discloses an augmented reality system for visualization of an electronically steerable antenna (abstract; as shown in fig. 17), the system comprising:
an augmented reality device (abstract, regarding a mobile phone) comprising:
a positioning module operative to determine a location of the augmented reality device relative to Earth (see again sec. 3.1),
an orientation module operative to resolve an orientation of the augmented reality device relative to Earth (see again sec. 3.1),
a sensor operative to capture sensor data in a field of view of the sensor (abstract, regarding a phone camera), and
an augmented reality display observable by a user (inherent given a mobile phone); and
an analysis module operative to identify an electronically steerable antenna from the sensor data and ascertain an antenna location and an antenna orientation of the electronically steerable antenna based on the sensor data, wherein the antenna location and the antenna orientation are provided relative to the field of view of the sensor of the augmented reality device (see again secs. 3.1-3.2);
wherein the augmented reality device visually represents at least one characteristic of the electronically steerable antenna in the augmented reality display of the augmented reality device based on the ascertained antenna location and the antenna orientation (see again sec. 3.2 and fig. 17).
Regarding claim 18, Kang discloses claim 17, and further discloses wherein the analysis module is operative to access known antenna morphology information for one or more reference antennas and is operative to identify the antenna by comparing the sensor data obtained by the sensor of the augmented reality device to the known antenna morphology information to identify the electronically steerable antenna within the field of view of the sensor (see again sec. 3.1).
Regarding claim 19, Kang discloses claim 18, and further discloses wherein the sensor comprises an image sensor and the comparing comprises applying an image analysis model to identify the electronically steerable antenna (see again sec. 3.1, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Kang discloses claim 17, and further discloses wherein the analysis module is operative to identify the antenna from the sensor data by recognizing markers disposed at known positions on the electronically steerable antenna (as shown in fig. 11).
Regarding claim 21, Kang discloses claim 17, and further discloses wherein the field of view of the sensor is known relative to the device orientation of the augmented reality device (fig. 11) and the analysis module is operative to determine a distance between the augmented reality device and the electronically steerable antenna, and wherein the antenna location is determined based on the distance, the device location, and the device orientation (see again sec. 3.1).
Regarding claim 22, Kang discloses claim 17, and further discloses wherein the sensor comprises an image sensor (as shown in fig. 3) and analysis module comprises an image analysis model to identify the antenna location and the antenna orientation of the electronically steerable antenna (as shown in figs. 11 and 17).
Regarding claim 23, Kang discloses claim 17, and further discloses wherein the at least one characteristic includes: an antenna axis of the electronically steerable antenna (as shown in fig. 16); and a target orientation line corresponding to a desired antenna orientation (as shown in fig. 16).
Regarding claim 24, Kang discloses claim 23, and further discloses wherein the target orientation line is based on the antenna location (as shown in fig. 16).
Regarding claim 25, Kang discloses claim 23, and further discloses wherein the augmented reality display visually indicates when the antenna axis is aligned with the target orientation line (as shown in figs. 16-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 and 26-32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, the prior art does not appear to teach the combined limitations of claims 10 and 26, as per the cited prior art detailed hereinabove.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 571-270-5144. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
