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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
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 a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A system for reducing latency and bandwidth usage in reality devices comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
determine a level of computation offloading to an edge server based on the behavior data (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
a reality device operably collecting behavior data of a user (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of collecting/gathering/aggregating data/information);
one or more processors (generic computing components) operable to:
offload one or more tasks to the edge server based on the level of computation offloading (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
a reality device operably collecting behavior data of a user (extra-solution activity of collecting/gathering/aggregating data/information);
one or more processors operable to:
offload one or more tasks to the edge server based on the level of computation offloading (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the behavior data comprises head movement data, eye-tracking data, and voice commands (extra-solution activity of collecting/gathering/aggregating data/information).
Claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the voice commands comprises a start-offload command, a pause-offload command, and a resume-offload command (extra-solution activity of collecting/gathering/aggregating data/information).
Claim 4. The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further operable to: capture a frame of a view external to a vehicle using the reality device (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information); determine whether an interested virtual object exists in the frame based on the head movement data and the eye-tracking data including gaze directions (abstract idea mental process); and in response to determining that the interested virtual object exists in the frame, transmit the frame to the edge server for object detection (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the reality device comprises an eye-tracking sensor operable to capture eye-tracking data (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of collecting/gathering/aggregating data/information).
Claim 6. The system of claim 5, wherein the eye-tracking data comprises eye positions of the user, an eye angle of the user, and a pupil size of the user (extra-solution activity of collecting/gathering/aggregating data/information).
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more tasks comprise object detection, ads recommendation, lane detection, localization and mapping, path planning, or a combination thereof (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 8. The system of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further operable to determine a computing resource level for each task (abstract idea mental process) and offload, to the edge server, the tasks having corresponding computing resource levels greater than a resource threshold level (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further operable to receive object detection data from the edge server, wherein the object detection data comprises box cords of detected objects in a frame of a view external to a vehicle captured by the reality device, confidence of each corresponding box cord, and object information of each detected object (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further operable to autonomously drive the vehicle based on the object detection data (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 11. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further operable to superimpose the object detection data onto a real-world view (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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.
Claims 4 and 15 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.
As per claim 4, it is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “interested” virtual object. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the prior art cited below teaches “interested” virtual object and that “interested” virtual object can mean any virtual object. Appropriate clarification is required.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boone et al. (US 2025/0085752) (hereinafter Boone).
As per claim 1, Boone teaches a system for reducing latency and bandwidth usage in reality devices comprising:
a reality device operably collecting behavior data of a user ([0025] XR device includes detecting at least one keyword associated with the condition uttered by a user of the XR device during XR usage and determining that the condition is met in response to detecting the at least one keyword and [0081] if any keywords or key phrases associated with conditions for offloading the thermal load of the XR device 340 are detected during XR usage e.g., via a microphone, then a determination can be made to offload the thermal load of the XR device);
one or more processors (fig. 1, block 110) operable to:
determine a level of computation offloading to an edge server based on the behavior data ([0063] and [0089] offload the thermal load to the selected edge processing devices which can include offloading processing and memory tasks to the selected edge processing devices to reduce the amount of processing that the XR device is required to complete; [0102] any data and data structures illustrated or described herein are examples only, and in other embodiments, different amounts of data, types of data, fields, numbers and types of fields, field names, numbers and types of rows, records, entries, or organizations of data may be used); and
offload one or more tasks to the edge server based on the level of computation offloading ([0058]-[0059] and [0074] thermal data and biometric data can be used for determining whether to offload the thermal load of the XR device to edge processing devices; [0095] a determination is made whether a condition is met for offloading the thermal load of the XR device to edge processing devices).
As per claim 5, Boone further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the reality device comprises an eye-tracking sensor operable to capture eye-tracking data ([0071] XR device and eye-tracking sensors).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Ellappan et al. (US 2024/0087486) (hereinafter Ellappan).
As per claim 2, Boone further teaches wherein the behavior data comprises voice commands ([0025] XR device includes detecting at least one keyword associated with the condition uttered by a user of the XR device during XR usage and determining that the condition is met in response to detecting the at least one keyword and [0081] if any keywords or key phrases associated with conditions for offloading the thermal load of the XR device 340 are detected during XR usage e.g., via a microphone, then a determination can be made to offload the thermal load of the XR device).
Boone does not explicitly teach head movement data and eye-tracking data.
However, Ellappan teaches head movement data ([0081] head tilt/shake and [0130] head motions) and eye-tracking data ([0092] eye tracking data).
Ellappan and Boone are both concerned with virtual reality and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Ellappan because it would provide a way to determine an appropriate corrective action that can be taken to avoid exceeding thermal limits implemented in a remote server or edge server for protecting a mobile computing device and/or user wearable computing device. This can include receiving a plurality of thermal data corresponding to specific hardware components of the mobile computing device and/or user wearable computing device, recognizing when one or more components are approaching a thermal limit, determining an action that can be taken in the remote server or edge server and/or in the mobile computing device and/or user wearable computing device to prevent exceeding a thermal limit, including predicting thermal effects of such actions, and taking an action to implement the action.
As per claim 7, Boone does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more tasks comprise object detection, ads recommendation, lane detection, localization and mapping, path planning, or a combination thereof.
However, Ellappan teaches wherein the one or more tasks comprise object detection, ads recommendation, lane detection, localization and mapping, path planning, or a combination thereof ([0092] imaging sensors using computer vision may detect the location and angular orientation of surfaces, as well as recognize objects).
Ellappan and Boone are both concerned with virtual reality and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Ellappan because it would provide a way to recognize over-temperature conditions and identify preventive actions that can be tailored to the location of high temperatures in the XR devices, while balancing processing loads between the various computing devices to achieve best overall temperature performance. This can improve the regulation of temperature within user devices receiving download services from an external server and/or edge server, particularly AR, XR and VR applications executing on a UE and/or AR/XR/VR wearable devices, such as XR glasses.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Jung et al. (US 2021/0168655) (hereinafter Jung’655).
As per claim 3, Boone in view of Ellappan do not explicitly teach wherein the voice commands comprises a start-offload command, a pause-offload command, and a resume-offload command.
However, Jung’655 teaches wherein the voice commands comprises a start-offload command, a pause-offload command, and a resume-offload command ([0168] stop, or suspend offloading procedure without terminating the offloading procedure and retain data for resuming the offloading procedure later).
Jung’655 and Boone are both concerned with offloading tasks in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Jung’655 because it would provide a way for the efficiency of data processing to be improved by processing at least some of the data on the servers rather than processing all of the data on the user equipment alone. In this case, the servers can be servers configured for more efficient use of physical servers, and may be servers to which a virtualization technology is applied for task offloading.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Ha et al. (US 2018/0130351) (hereinafter Ha) in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0133579) (hereinafter Chang) in view of Jung et al. (US 2024/0046426) (hereinafter Jung’426).
As per claim 4, Boone in view of Ellappan do not explicitly teach capture a frame of a view external to a vehicle using the reality device; determine whether an interested virtual object exists in the frame based on the head movement data and the eye-tracking data including gaze directions; and in response to determining that the interested virtual object exists in the frame, transmit the frame to the edge server for object detection.
However, Ha teaches capture a frame of a view external to a vehicle using the reality device ([0242] when the vehicle arrives near a destination, the controller automatically selects a parking search mode to search for a virtual parking-available space preset based on AR information, controls the camera to capture an outside image of the vehicle in real time, and controls the display unit to output the captured real-time image).
Ha and Boone are both concerned with virtual reality and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Ha because it would provide for a vehicle control device which can enhance a user experience of finding a parking-available space using AR information. The vehicle control device can provide parking space information to a user through a graphic user interface presenting various graphics, and the user can easily and intuitively find the parking available space through the graphics.
Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Ha do not explicitly teach determine whether an interested virtual object exists in the frame based on the head movement data and the eye-tracking data including gaze directions; and in response to determining that the interested virtual object exists in the frame, transmit the frame to the edge server for object detection.
However, Chang teaches determine whether an interested virtual object exists in the frame based on the head movement data and the eye-tracking data including gaze directions ([0036] based on detecting changes or transitions in movement, such as when gaze of the user transitions from a saccades phase to smooth pursuit or when motion of the head of the user transitions from relatively faster movement to relatively slower movement or vice versa, the gaze data processing engine may determine that an object or region of interest may potentially exist in the scene being viewed by the user).
Chang and Boone are both concerned with virtual reality and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Ha in view of Chang because it would provide for eye tracking analysis that may efficiently capture human visual regional focus in the scene, focusing video analysis on regions of interest and eliminating analysis of other, superfluous, regions of the scene thereby improving computational efficiency. Eye tracking can used to detect human visual attention, and video content analysis is triggered only when human attention is likely. In some aspects, eye movement types, such as saccades or smooth pursuit, are detected and serve as an “intermediate” supervision incorporated into the learning process. This allows for the system to efficiently and accurately track visual attention of a user as the user is viewing a scene, and to make accurate decisions based on likelihood that certain regions and/or objects within the scene are of interest to the user.
Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Ha in view of Chang do not explicitly teach in response to determining that the interested virtual object exists in the frame, transmit the frame to the edge server for object detection.
However, Jung’426 teaches in response to determining that the interested virtual object exists in the frame, transmit the frame to the edge server for object detection ([0109] recognize an object in an image by applying a predefined object recognition algorithm to an input image/video, thereby determining whether an object exists. The AI video analysis system may be an image processing module provided on an external server communicatively connected to the surveillance camera. In this case, the processor of the surveillance camera may request object recognition request command and/or a movement degree e.g., a moving speed of the object, an average moving speed information about the object, etc.), while transmitting the input image to the external server).
Jung’426 and Boone are both concerned with virtual reality and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Ha in view of Chang in view of Jung’426 because it would provide a way of dynamically controlling noise removal intensity to minimize motion alarm errors resulting from reliance on motion data of the related art and minimize motion blur of an object, while increasing a recognition rate of the object by accurately recognizing motion information about the object, by applying artificial intelligence technology to the image processing of cameras.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Peng et al. (US 2020/0183169) (hereinafter Peng).
As per claim 6, Boone does not explicitly teach wherein the eye-tracking data comprises eye positions of the user, an eye angle of the user, and a pupil size of the user.
However, Peng teaches wherein the eye-tracking data comprises eye positions of the user, an eye angle of the user, and a pupil size of the user ([0048] an eye box is defined as the volume of space within which an effectively viewable image is formed by the augmented reality headset display, and it represents a combination of an exit pupil size and an eye relief distance. Nominally, the exit pupil size is assumed to be that of human viewer's experiencing photopic light levels, whereas an eye relief is the distance from the last surface of an eyepiece within which the viewer's eye can obtain the full viewing angle).
Peng and Boone are both concerned with virtual reality and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Peng because it would provide for improved wide field of view augmented reality glasses or headsets that have better optical designs and performance that provide enhanced resolution or smaller blur circles. This would advantageously operate to filter the light from the virtual images and real images. In turn, this reduces the blur circle for both sources and results in the virtual images and the real-world images being more in focus regardless of the depth of the real-world elements.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Arvind et al. (US 2022/0413915) (hereinafter Arvind).
As per claim 8, Boone in view of Ellappan do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further operable to determine a computing resource level for each task and offload, to the edge server, the tasks having corresponding computing resource levels greater than a resource threshold level.
However, Arvind teaches wherein the one or more processors are further operable to determine a computing resource level for each task and offload, to the edge server, the tasks having corresponding computing resource levels greater than a resource threshold level ([0099] if the processing usage exceeds a predetermined threshold, the workload may be offloaded to the network edge so that the processing resources at the network edge can perform the tasks. The workload edge control nodes and/or the flexcell conductor may be configured to determine if the processing usage exceeds the threshold and that the workload should be offloaded).
Arvind and Boone are both concerned with task offloading and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Ellappan in view of Arvind because it would provide a way to determine preferred or optimal compute nodes based on the telemetry data received by the telemetry engine. Compute nodes may compete for the shared network resources e.g., scheduling grants and allocated physical resources, and the telemetry engine may determine the preferred compute nodes for the particular workload services. Using the preferred node identified in the telemetry information, the orchestrator may update the orchestration information to reflect the preferred compute nodes. The flexcell conductor may adjust the workloads to relocate the relocate workloads to the preferred compute nodes to best utilize available networking resource.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Tal et al. (US 2023/0421732) (hereinafter Tal) in view of Dagley et al. (US 10,002,442) (hereinafter Dagley).
As per claim 9, Boone does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further operable to receive object detection data from the edge server, wherein the object detection data comprises box cords of detected objects in a frame of a view external to a vehicle captured by the reality device, confidence of each corresponding box cord, and object information of each detected object.
However, Tal teaches wherein the one or more processors are further operable to receive object detection data from the edge server ([0069] the device can detect objects of interest using image processing to be stored in memory for later matching with assets. This can take place on the device, the server, or a combination thereof), confidence of each corresponding box cord ([0169] object detection, wherein one or more objects of one or more possible types is detected in an image, typically marked through some image coordinates typically a bounding box, along with a description and a score (such as confidence or probability), and object information of each detected object ([0071] detect objects containing personal information and [0146] object tracking metadata).
Tal and Boone are both concerned with image processing in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Tal because it would provide for enhanced asset data collection functions, asset condition analysis, and asset alerts. The system can assist in updating existing asset records, adding new assets to asset inventories, identifying maintenance issues, and identifying assets which are no longer present.
Boone in view of Tal do not explicitly teach wherein the object detection data comprises box cords of detected objects in a frame of a view external to a vehicle captured by the reality device.
However, Dagley teaches wherein the object detection data comprises box cords of detected objects in a frame of a view external to a vehicle captured by the reality device (col. 5, ll. 11-57 detect bounding box shape associated with car and augmented reality object).
Dagley in view of Boone are both concerned with image processing in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Tal in view of Dagley because it provide for effective and accurate placement of augmented reality objects in an image displayed by a user device. For example, automatic placement and/or alignment of an augmented reality object relative to a target object e.g., above a target object, a particular distance above the target object, and/or the like can be accomplished, thereby ensuring and/or enhancing the usefulness of the augmented reality object to the user, and obviating manual and/or further attempts to position the user device to accomplish a desired result, thereby conserving processing resources, power e.g., battery life, and/or the like of the user device.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Tal in view of Dagley in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0053563) (hereinafter Li).
As per claim 10, Boone in view of Tal in view of Dagley do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further operable to autonomously drive the vehicle based on the object detection data.
However, Li teaches wherein the one or more processors are further operable to autonomously drive the vehicle based on the object detection data (fig. 17 and fig. 26 control vehicle in autonomous driving mode to avoid a collision with detected object).
Li in view of Boone are both concerned with image processing in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Tal in view of Dagley in view of Li because it would provide a way to effectively increase the calculated distances between the autonomous vehicle and other objects which can also reduce the likelihood of false positive collisions with other objects, reduce the likelihood of a vehicle becoming stranded e.g., unable to proceed because it is falsely blocked by another object, and reduce occlusions caused by other objects as the autonomous vehicle may be able to get closer to or nudge around the object. All of these benefits, in turn, can enable the autonomous vehicle to better maneuver around objects, in some cases, drive faster, and also reduce the need for evasive or otherwise uncomfortable maneuvers which can improve overall driving comfort for vehicle passengers.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Tal in view of Dagley in view of Baer et al. (US 2017/0277180) (hereinafter Baer).
As per claim 11, Boone in view of Tal in view of Dagley do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further operable to superimpose the object detection data onto a real-world view.
However, Baer teaches wherein the one or more processors are further operable to superimpose the object detection data onto a real-world view ([0028] because the anchor points are associated with real-world positions, the surveyor and/or controller may determine real-world dimensions associated with lines or shapes overlaying the real-world scene depicted by the controller. Said another way, the lines and shapes are virtual objects associated with real-world coordinates. These virtual objects are superimposed within the 3D space of the real-world scene captured by the camera).
Baer in view of Boone are both concerned with image processing in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone in view of Tal in view of Dagley in view of Baer because it would provide for a LiDAR solution including multiple Electro Optical video and/or Infrared information working in unison to achieve a scanning effect. As such, a virtual graph e.g., including multiple anchor points can be easily and quickly acquired which could be very beneficial in a space scan, saving time and money.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Xu et al. (US 2021/0185392) disclose providing augmented reality content based on user engagement.
Wang et al. (US 2022/0028185) disclose improving task offloading scheduling in an edge-computing environment.
Sudhakaran et al. (US 2021/0302956) disclose network aware and predictive motion planning in mobile multi-robotics systems.
Saxena et al. (US 2022/0245903) disclose selective offloading of workloads to edge devices.
Rodriguez Hervas et al. (US 2022/0379913) disclose perception-based sign detection and interpretation for autonomous machine systems and applications.
Miller et al. (US 2023/0130770) disclose interacting with physical devices via an artificial-reality device.
H N et al. (US 2024/0169599) disclose precise alignment of augmented reality objects with physical objects.
Gewickey et al. (US 2016/0191893) disclose immersive virtual reality production and playback.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights