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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khmelev et al. (US Pat No. 11,626,001) and Amariei et al. (US Pat No. 11,371,859).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Khmelev teaches a computer implemented method comprising:
Non-transitory computer readable medium executed by computer processors to perform the below listed operations (Col. 5 lines 35-40) and
receiving data indicating a point of interest that is identified by a user (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “The user has indicated he will be traveling along his normal route 810 via a first road 808 to a destination 850… a user may enter their planned route to a new destination.”);
identifying one or more obstacle-free regions in an environment (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “Instead, the system recommends a secondary route 820, which may be slightly longer, but is clear of any obstructions, and is otherwise wheelchair friendly, as identified by a second label 814.”);
selecting, from among multiple candidate paths through the environment to the point of interest, a particular path through the environment to the point of interest (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “Instead, the system recommends a secondary route 820, which may be slightly longer, but is clear of any obstructions, and is otherwise wheelchair friendly, as identified by a second label 814.”); and
providing one or more indicators for the particular path to the point of interest (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “In FIG. 8, a map 840 is depicted that may be shown to a wearer of a personal wearable environmental monitoring and alert system via a display included with or connected to the user's system…The normal route 810 has been identified as undesirable by a first label 812. Instead, the system recommends a secondary route 820, which may be slightly longer, but is clear of any obstructions, and is otherwise wheelchair friendly, as identified by a second label 814.”).
Khmelev does not teach using sensor data generated by one or more sensors of a wearable device or selecting based on the multiple obstacle-free regions in the environment that are identified using the sensor data generated by the one or more sensors of the wearable device.
Amarieri teaches using sensor data generated by one or more sensors of a wearable and selecting based on the multiple obstacle-free regions in the environment that are identified using the sensor data generated by the one or more sensors of the wearable device device (See abstract, Fig. 14, Col. 17 lines 41-48 and Col. 4 lines 49-64).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Khmelev to include Amnarieri’s teachings “to provide more accurate and more detailed generation of the navigation paths; to provide better guidance of the visually impaired user along the navigation paths in terms of accuracy and security; to provide better guidance of the visually impaired user along the navigation paths in terms of more comfort” (Col. 4 lines 1-7). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Khmelev teaches the particular path through the environment is selected further based on performing a ground plane analysis (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “In other embodiments, a user may enter their planned route to a new destination and the system can be configured to provide feedback about the selected path, such as the quality of the terrain, how steep or hilly the path will be, the traffic conditions in the area, and other such undesirable conditions.”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Khmelev teaches the multiple candidate paths represent paths from a current position in the environment that is associated with the user and a position in the environment that is associated with the point of interest (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Khmelev teaches the one or more indicators for the particular path are provided for display to the user instead of providing an image of the environment (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Khmelev teaches identifying one or more updated obstacle-free regions in the environment, selecting, from among multiple updated candidate paths through the environment to the point of interest, an updated particular path through the environment to the point of interest; and providing one or more updated indicators for the updated particular path to the point of interest (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khmelev and Amarieri as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Moore et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0325319).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Khmelev does not teach the indicators are virtual spheres.
Moore teaches the indicators are virtual spheres (See [0423] and Fig. 49, step 4920 which shows only the selected route on the map.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Khmelev’s system to include Moore’s teachings for greater user convenience. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khmelev and Amarieri as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Bigio et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0383631).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Khmelev does not teach the indicators are virtual spheres.
Bigio teaches the indicators are virtual spheres (See [0152]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Khmelev’s system to include Bigio’s teachings in order to better provide a clean and uncluttered view for easier to follow directions. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
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 THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights