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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) amendments 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0060266 A1) in view of Meyer (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0086516 A1), and further in view of Mallinson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0025978).
Regarding claim 1:
Gao teaches: a system (Fig. 1: a system environment), comprising:
a head-worn device (Fig. 1: 200, smart glasses); and
a hand-held device (Fig. 1: 100, a handheld mobile terminal), the system being configured to detect a use of the hand-held device by a user wearing the head-worn device (see Fig. 2, whereby the steps of Fig. 1 show how the system can detect a user, wearing smart glasses (head-worn device) using a hand-held device (mobile terminal), based on detection of mobile terminal screen orientation, posture recognition of head-worn device, and movement of the mobile terminal).
Regarding the remaining features of claim 1, it would have been obvious have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained:
wherein the system is further configured to:
determine an absolute motion of the hand-held device and an absolute motion of the head-worn device, and determine a relative motion of the hand-held device with respect to the head-worn device based on the determined absolute motion of the hand-held device and the determined absolute motion of the head-worn device,
detect, based on the determined relative motion, the use of the hand-held device by the user (Gao, Fig. 2, see also paras. 40-42); and
in response to detecting the use of the hand-held device (Gao teaches this, mapped above), adapt, toward an optimal value, a value of a parameter of a function of an active optical device of the head-worn device based on values of environmental parameters of the user, wherein the optical value depends on the values of the environmental parameters of the user,
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Re: the determine function, Gao teaches that “mobile terminals” of Gao can include hand-held devices (para. 119, mobile phone, tablet, PDA, or the like and as mapped above) and head-worn devices (para. 119, smart glasses, or the like, as mapped above). Any/all of these can include a sensor component 1614 that can detect absolute motion of the device/mobile terminal (see Gao, para. 127). This teaches: absolute motion of the hand-held and head-worn deices, respectively. Regarding determining a relative motion based on the absolute motions, Meyer teaches that relative motion of a device relative to another device (in Meyer, e.g. device 100 and input member of wearable device 112), can be found by subtracting absolute motions of each member, respectively. See Meyer, para. 39. Meyer also teaches absolute motion of devices (see paras 31-38).
Modifying the applied references, such that the devices of Gao can determine relative motion by way of absolute motion (Gao already teaches sensors for absolute motion, and in para. 27, describes absolute motion of mobile terminal 100), as per Meyer, all references relevant to absolute and relative motion of relational devices, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill. Additional *motivation, per Gao, such to know when a user intends to interact with any one of interactive devices within a user’s control or reach (see Gao paras. 38-42 and Figs. 2-3). Even more *motivation to use absolute motion to determine relative motion can be found in Meyer, such to determine what component of a relative motion was likely due to an external force, and therefore unintentional, versus what was intentional (Meyer, para. 43, 48).
Re: the in response to function, Mallison teaches a head-worn device that has at least one “active optical device” (e.g. para. 10, a shutter screen of a HMD, or even the display screen itself can be an “active optical device”). Mallinson also teaches adapting a parameter toward an optical value (e.g. by modifying the shutter screen between opaque and transparent, or changing its polarization, this teaches parameters of: reflectance level, transmittance level, and/or polarization parameter based on values of environmental parameters (see e.g. paras. 10, 36, and claim 11, “environment condition” teaches environmental parameters).
Modifying the applied references, such that the teachings of Mallinson are applied to when Gao detects use of the hand-held device, is taught by Mallison and motivated for one of ordinary skill to provide users with ideal and improved HMD use conditions in view of a user’s environment.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
Gao teaches: the system according to claim 1, wherein the head-worn device includes a motion determination sensor (para. 127, a sensor component 1614, as part of a 1600 mobile terminal, whereby the mobile terminal 1600 can be smart glasses (para. 119)), and/or the hand-held device includes a motion determination sensor (para. 28, the mobile terminal (hand-held device) can have a gravity sensor, or per para. 34, also an acceleration sensor) (alternative mapping, para. 119 and 127).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to have components in devices to track movement for interactive purposes, and/or to locate devices for various reasons.
Regarding claim 3:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system according to claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to: determine a value of a parameter of the relative motion, and
determine when the user is using the hand-held device by comparing the determined value with a predetermined threshold, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One example: para. 28-31, a value of a parameter of relative motion can be the value as obtained from the gravity sensor, to determine the moving direction of the mobile terminal. Comparing this value with a predetermined threshold (i.e. no movement), can be used to determine when the user is using the mobile terminal (hand-held device). Another example teaching: Fig. 2: S210-240.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the relative motion and the detection, based on the relative motion, of the use of the hand-held device by the user, are together a first test, the adaptation is a first adaptation (see mapping to claim 1, these are all now labeled “first” items, and the display adaptation (as mapped in claim 1) is a “first” adaptation), and the system is further configured:
detect, using a second test, the use of the hand-held device by the user, and
when detecting, using the second test, that the user is using the hand-held device, perform a second adaptation, toward the optimal value, of the value of the parameter of the function of the active optical device of the head-worn device (see mapping to claim 1, the language of claim 6, is taught by a user repeating the steps in claim 1 a second time, especially toward the end, when the “second adaptation, toward the optimal value” is of the value of the parameter of the function of the element (basically, the same value of the same parameter of the same function as mapped in claim 1, is being optimized again, or a second time)
(alternative mapping: for a second test that is different than the first test see Gao, the test can include whether both the orientation of the mobile screen (hand-held device) and user’s palm are upward. This addition to the test of determining whether the mobile terminal is in the FOV of the smart glasses (head worn device). See para. 30),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system according to the claim 6, wherein the first adaptation depends on a value of a parameter of the first test, and/or
the second adaptation depends on a value of a parameter of the second test, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
See mapping to claim 1, claim 7 is somewhat respectfully redundant claim language, the first and/or second adaptation (mapped to adaptation of display features, in claim 1), is a first or second, and depends on a value of a parameter of the first or second test.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system according to claim 6, wherein the second test comprises a detection of a gaze axis of the user (Mallinson, para 81, gaze tracking), and
when the detected gaze axis is crossing the hand-held device, the use of the hand-held device is detected (Gao, para. 29-30, when the current field of view of the head-worn device (i.e. as detected by gaze, per Mallinson) contains the mobile terminal (hand-held device), this can be an indication that the use of the hand-held device/mobile terminal is detected),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 10, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system according to claim 6, wherein the second test comprises a detection of a reception by the hand-held device of a notification, and when the hand-held device receives the notification, the use of the hand-held device is detected (Gao, para. 29, notification can be “recognition success information” sent to the mobile terminal/hand-held device), and/or
the second test comprises determining whether a screen of the hand-held device is turned on, when the screen of the hand-held device is determined to be turned on, the use of the hand-held device is detected,
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 11, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13:
Gao teaches: the system according to claim 1, wherein the head-worn device is eyeglasses, or a clip configured to be attachable to eyeglasses (Fig. 2: 200, smart glasses).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known devices for user engagement and interactive monitoring.
Regarding claim 14:
Gao teaches: the system according to claim 1, wherein the hand-held device is a smartphone (Fig. 4) (alternative rationale: Gao is not limited to what the mobile terminal (hand-held device) can be; see Fig. 16 and related description, which describes functionality of a mobile device as a smartphone).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known devices for user engagement and interactive monitoring.
Regarding claim 15: see claim 1.
The method of claim 15 corresponds to the functions performed by the system of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 16:
Mallinson teaches: the system of claim 1, wherein the parameter of the function of the active optical device relates to a transmittance level, a tint level, a reflectance level, an optical power, or a polarization parameter of the active optical device (see e.g., paras. 10, 36, and claim 11, modifying the shutter screen teaches at least transmittance, reflectance and/or polarization of the active optical device (the shutter screen or the display of the HMD)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to incorporate ways to make use of an HMD more tailored to a user’s current surroundings or environment.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Meyer and Mallinson, further in view of Sahiholnasab (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0140826 A1).
Regarding claim 12:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system according to claim 1, wherein the optimal value is a first optimal value (see mapping to claim 1, first optimal value of display/shutter modification), and the system is further configured to,
when detecting that the user is using the hand-held device, adapt, toward a second optimal value, a value of a parameter of a function of an element of the hand-held device (e.g. Sahiholnasab, claim 4,”wherein the system is configured to alter an output provided to the user by the portable electronic device when the user does not correct poor posture exhibited during use of the portable electronic device after being provided at least a warning.” Here, the parameter value toward a second optimal value is the output values of graphics related to the portable (hand-held) electronic device.
See also para. 61, for more details regarding altering the output of the portable/hand-held device, “the device may cause its screen to dim, change color, orientation, arrangement of pixels, or the like, or shut down altogether if one or more warnings are given and ignored.”), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 12, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Meyer and Mallinson and further in view of Qian (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0078004 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system according to the claim 6, wherein the system is further configured to perform the first test and the second test by an increasing order of a confidence level of the first test and a confidence level of the second test, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Qian teaches that confidence levels are known in the art, generally as an indicator as to the level of confidence that the underlying model/test/algorithm etc., is a true value (see paras. 198, 199, 214). Likewise, even Gao teaches improved accuracy (teaches/suggests different confidence levels) between tests (see Gao, para. 30). Modifying the applied references, such to have included the above, in view of Qian, that the two tests have different confidence levels, as different tests, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system according to the claim 8, wherein the system is further configured to: when the confidence level of the first test is higher than the confidence level of the second test, adapt more, toward the optimal value, the value of the function of the element of the head-worn device, during the first adaptation than during the second adaptation, and/or
when the confidence level of the first test is lower than the confidence level of the second test, adapt more, toward the optimal value, the value of the function of the element of the head-worn device, during the second adaptation than during the first adaptation, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
See above mapping to claim 8, which basically recites preference toward the test that has the higher confidence level, which is obvious embodiment over the prior art (i.e. preference over a test that has a greater probability or likelihood of a true result).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights