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 Status
This action is in response to the application filed on 11/15/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claims 1-6 14 -15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190378423 A1 (“Bachrach”).
Regarding claim 1, Bachrach teaches a first computing device comprising a camera; (see at least [0038]) and
a second computing device communicatively coupled to the first computing device and comprising: a user interface to display a view of what is received at the camera of the first computing device (see at least [0039]);
a memory; and a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory to: receive a trigger to launch a plurality of augmented reality (AR) applications when communication with the first computing device is detected (see at least [0102] and [0136];
launch the plurality of AR applications on the second computing device; track a location of the first computing device; and display a route to a different location including AR via the user interface, wherein the route comprises displayed AR within a physical environment of the route of the first computing device via the plurality of AR applications (see at least [0113])
Regarding claim 2, Bachrach teaches the route from the different location to the first location is different than a reverse route traveled by the apparatus from the location to the different location (see at least [0113])
Regarding claim 3, Bachrach teaches the instructions executed to remotely control the first computing device to travel to the different location using the route (see at least [0038])
Regarding claim 4, Bachrach teaches the first computing device is a drone (see at least [0171]).
Regarding claim 5, Bachrach teaches the instructions are executed to track the location of the first computing device using a global positioning system of the first computing device, an accelerometer of the first computing device, or a gyroscope of the first computing device (see at least [0124]).
Regarding claim 6, Bachrach teaches the instructions executed to display the route as superimposed digital information tailored to the first computing device’s physical position and context of an associated task overlayed on a view of the physical environment (see at least Fig. 6 and [0064]).
Regarding claim 14, Bachrach teaches a first computing device comprising a camera (see at least [0079]); and
a second computing device communicatively coupled to the first computing device and comprising: a user interface to display a view of what is received at the camera of the first computing device; a memory (see at least 0039]); and
a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory to: receive a trigger to launch a plurality of augmented reality (AR) applications when the first computing device is in a first location; launch the plurality of AR applications on the second computing device (see at least [0102]);
track a location of the first computing device; provide a route to a second location for the first computing device using the launched plurality of AR applications (see at least [0136]); and
display the route including AR via the user interface, wherein: the route comprises displayed AR within a physical environment of the route to the second location via the plurality of AR applications; and the route comprises a combination of a descriptive route and a non-descriptive route that does not follow a roadway (see at least [0102]).
Regarding claim 15, Bachrach teaches the trigger is a request to launch an AR camera on the first computing device (see at least [0102]).
Regarding claim 17, Bachrach teaches the instructions are executed to provide the route via alerts to the second computing device (see at least [0113]).
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 7-8, 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190378423 A1 (“Bachrach”) in view of S 20190212158 A1 (“Gordon”).
Regarding claim 7, though Bachrach discloses a first computing device comprising a camera (see at least [0079]); and
a second computing device communicatively coupled to the first computing device and comprising: a user interface to display a view of what is received at the camera of the first computing device; a memory (see at least [0039]); and
a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory to: provide a non-descriptive route to a second location from a first location for the first computing device using a plurality of launched augmented reality (AR) applications; and display the non-descriptive route including AR within a physical environment of the route of the first computing device to the second location via the plurality of AR applications (see at least [0102]); and
Bachrach is not explicit on the first computing device to make a delivery to the second location, however,
Gordon discloses the first computing device to make a delivery to the second location (see at least [0052]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Bachrach with the system for navigating to a moving target in an augmented reality environment disclosed by Gordon in order to output the at least one optimized course to a display interface of the augmented reality environment on the separate device accessible to the user (Gordon, [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Bachrach discloses track a location of the first computing device from the second location to a third location; and provide a route from the third location to the first location using the launched plurality of AR applications (see at least [0170]).
Regarding claim 11, Bachrach discloses the instructions executed to provide the non-descriptive route by displaying the AR via the user interface as superimposed digital information overlayed on a view of a physical environment (see at least [0102]).
Regarding claim 12, Bachrach is not explicit on the second location does not have a physical address, however,
Gordon discloses the second location does not have a physical address (see at least [0052]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Bachrach with the system for navigating to a moving target in an augmented reality environment disclosed by Gordon in order to output the at least one optimized course to a display interface of the augmented reality environment on the separate device accessible to the user (Gordon, [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, Bachrach discloses the first computing device is a drone (see at least [0171]).
Regarding claim 18, Bachrach is not explicit on at least one of the location and the different location does not have a physical address, however,
Gordon discloses at least one of the location and the different location does not have a physical address (see at least [0052]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Bachrach with the system for navigating to a moving target in an augmented reality environment disclosed by Gordon in order to output the at least one optimized course to a display interface of the augmented reality environment on the separate device accessible to the user (Gordon, [0004]).
Regarding claim 19, Bachrach is not explicit on the instructions are executed to guide the first computing device to pick up a package at the first location, however,
Gordon discloses the instructions are executed to guide the first computing device to pick up a package at the first location (see at least [0052]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Bachrach with the system for navigating to a moving target in an augmented reality environment disclosed by Gordon in order to output the at least one optimized course to a display interface of the augmented reality environment on the separate device accessible to the user (Gordon, [0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Bachrach is not explicit on the instructions are executed to guide the first computing device to deliver the package to the second location (see at least [0052]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Bachrach with the system for navigating to a moving target in an augmented reality environment disclosed by Gordon in order to output the at least one optimized course to a display interface of the augmented reality environment on the separate device accessible to the user (Gordon, [0004]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190378423 A1 (“Bachrach”) in view of US 20190212158 A1 (“Gordon”) in further view of US 20220044016 A1 (“Pan”).
Regarding claim 9, Bachrach in view of Gordon is not explicit on the instructions executed to provide the non-descriptive route by displaying the AR via the user interface as an avatar displayed within a physical environment , however
Pan discloses the instructions executed to provide the non-descriptive route by displaying the AR via the user interface as an avatar displayed within a physical environment (see at least 0105]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Bachrach in view of Gordon with the system for providing an augmented reality experience disclosed by Pan so that enhanced methods for connecting to, loading, activating and using augmented reality platforms utilized in process control or other industrial environments (Pan, [0001]).
Regarding claim 10, Bachrach in view of Gordon is not explicit on the instructions executed to provide the non-descriptive route by displaying the AR via the user interface as an arrow indicating a direction of travel displayed within a physical environment, however,
Pan discloses the instructions executed to provide the non-descriptive route by displaying the AR via the user interface as an arrow indicating a direction of travel displayed within a physical environment (see at least [0104]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Bachrach in view of Gordon with the system for providing an augmented reality experience disclosed by Pan so that enhanced methods for connecting to, loading, activating and using augmented reality platforms utilized in process control or other industrial environments (Pan, [0001]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190378423 A1 (“Bachrach”) in view of US 20170343356 A1 (“Roumeliotis”).
Regarding claim 16, Bachrach is not explicit on the trigger is a particular change in acceleration forces of the first computing device, however,
Roumeliotis discloses the trigger is a particular change in acceleration forces of the first computing device (see at least [0035]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Bachrach with the system that relates to navigation and, more particularly, to vision-aided inertial navigation in order to address GPS-denied navigation. During the past decade, VINS have been successfully applied to robots, spacecraft, automotive, and personal localization (e.g., by use of smartphones or laptops), demonstrating real-time performance (Roumeliotis, [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON whose telephone number is (408)918-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 - 5:00 PST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272 - 7298. 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.
/MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665