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
Claims 1-20 filed on 11/21/2024 are pending.
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 1-2, 6-9, 13-16 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Angel et al. (“Angel”) [U.S Patent No. 10,902,263 B1]
Regarding claim 1, Angel meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method, performed by a user device worn by a visually impaired user (e.g. ‘A user may employ a portable apparatus including a camera’) [Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 36; col. 3, ll. 1-5; col. 26, ll. 1-10], the method comprising [Fig. 12, 13; Abstract: col. 1, ll. 5-30]:
detecting a current scene surrounding the user (i.e. ‘identified’ as a “car”, “traffic light” or “person”) [Fig. 4, 5, 12; col. 13, 14, 26, 28, 30, 31: ‘a sequence of images of an environment’; ‘determining a first a geographical location’; Table 4];
obtaining real-time user data and image data of the current scene (i.e. ‘a sequence of images or frames captured by the camera in real-time’), the real-time user data including current location information of the user [col. 13, 14, 30, 31: ‘the traffic light is 50 feet ahead of you’; ‘associated with a geographical location at a time the image was generated’; ‘determining a first a geographical location’];
recognizing a plurality of objects in the current scene using the real-time image data (i.e. ‘identified’ as a “car”, “traffic light” or “person”) [Fig. 4, 5, 12; col. 13, 14, 26, 28, 30, 31: ‘determining … a first identity of the first object’; Table 4];
determining a point of interest (POI) associated with the user (i.e. ‘identified’ as a “car”, “traffic light” or “person”) [Fig. 4, 5, 12; col. 13, 14, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31: ‘the presence of a potential obstacle’; ‘to monitor other regions of the images … to identify potential hazards’; Table 4];
selecting [Fig. 4, 5, 12; col. 13, 14, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31: ‘the presence of a potential obstacle’; ‘to monitor other regions of the images … to identify potential hazards; Table 4: ‘generates a bounding box around the object’] one or more objects relevant to the determined POI from the plurality of objects and identifying one or more features associated with the identified objects [Fig. 4, 5, 12, 13; col. 13, 14, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31: ‘identifying a first feature point in the representation of the first object’; ‘the user is notified of … the traffic light’s current status’, e.g., ‘a green light’, ‘a state change of a baggage carousel’; ‘mood detection’];
determining information (e.g., ‘confidence scores’, ‘object locations’, or ‘object types’) [Fig. 5, 12, 14: ‘Store Waypoint Type and Location’ 1412; col. 14, 21-23, 26: ‘a number of feature points 551; Table 1: ‘a hierarchical table of object types’] about the identified objects and the identified features associated with each one of the selected objects;
generating audio signals corresponding to the information (e.g., ‘an audio notification’) [col. 26: ‘to notify the user that there is “a traffic light 40 feet ahead of you, the light is red”]; and
outputting the audio signals through the user device (e.g., ‘an audio notification … through headphones’) to convey the information to the user [Fig. 13: ‘1305’; col. 26: ‘to notify the user that there is “a traffic light 40 feet ahead of you, the light is red”] and to allow the user to perceive the selected objects [col. 26: ‘to notify the user that there is “a traffic light 40 feet ahead of you, the light is red”] and the identified features associated with each selected object (i.e. ‘the state of traffic light 1302 has changed to become a green light’) [col. 26: ‘to notify the user that there is “a traffic light 40 feet ahead of you, the light is red”].
Regarding claim 2, Angel meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a reference scene (e.g., ‘Pug’ in Table 1) from a plurality of preestablished reference scenes [Fig. 4; col. 21-22: Table 1: ‘Related Remote Image’; ‘the remote image processing system identifies a Pug object’], the reference scene (i.e. ‘Pug’) being associated with the current location information [Fig. 4; col. 21-22: ‘As the remote image processing system 404 and local image processing system 406 operate, each system transmits output including object identification, …, and object locations’] and the recognized objects (i.e. ‘identifies a dog object’) [Fig. 4; col. 21-22: Table 1]; and determining that the current scene is the identified reference scene [Fig. 4; col. 21-23: ‘The controller may then select the more precise object identified (which will typically be determined by the remote image processing system)’; ‘Because the pug object is more precise, the identification may be used …’], wherein the POI (i.e. ‘Dog’ identified as ‘Pug’) is determined based on the identified reference scene [col. 21-23].
Regarding claim 6, Angel meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a relevance level of each one of the selected objects to the POI (i.e. ‘confidence scores’) [Fig. 8B; col. 8, ll. 60, col. 13, 14, 31: ‘generates a confidence score for the determined identification of the object’; ‘Each object identification is associated with a confidence score’]; and determining a first contextual sequence for the identified objects (i.e. “a traffic light 40”) according to the relevance levels of the selected objects [col. 25, 26: Table 2; ‘determines a set of objects’], wherein the information about the selected objects (i.e. ‘the light is red’ or ‘a green light’) is conveyed to the user following the first contextual sequence (i.e. ‘a traffic light 40 feet ahead of you’) [col. 25, 26: ‘notified of the existence of the traffic light’; ‘an audio notification may be provided … to notify the user that there is “a traffic light 40”; ‘In response to being notified of the presence of detected textual data …’; ’a green light …, the user will be notified of the status change’ ].
Regarding claim 7, Angel meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, for each identified object, a relevance level of each one of the identified features to the POI (i.e. ‘confidence scores’) [Fig. 8B; col. 8, ll. 60, col. 13, 14, 31: ‘generates a confidence score for the determined identification of the object’; ‘Each object identification is associated with a confidence score’]; and determining a second contextual sequence for the identified features (i.e. “a traffic light 40”) according to the relevance levels of the identified features [col. 25, 26: Table 2; ‘determines a set of objects’], wherein the information about the identified features (i.e. ‘the light is red’ or ‘a green light’) is conveyed to the user following the second contextual sequence (i.e. ‘a traffic light 40 feet ahead of you’) [col. 25, 26: ‘notified of the existence of the traffic light’; ‘an audio notification may be provided … to notify the user that there is “a traffic light 40”; ‘In response to being notified of the presence of detected textual data …’; ’a green light …, the user will be notified of the status change’].
Regarding claim 8, the corresponding device in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Note: Angel [Fig. 3] also meets the claim limitation “one or more processors; and a computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors”.
Regarding claim 9, the corresponding device in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 13, the corresponding device in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 6, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 14, the corresponding device in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 7, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 15, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Note: Angel [Fig. 2, 3; col. 11, 12] also meets the claim limitation “a user device; and a central server in communication with the user device via a network;”.
Regarding claim 16, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 19, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 6, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 20, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 7, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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 3-5, 10-12 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel in view of Trivedi (“Trivedi”) [US 2010/0082241 A1]
Regarding claim 3, Angel meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the POI is determined based on one or more user characteristics (i.e. ‘emotions displayed by the faces’) [col. 11, ll. 50-60; col. 25-27: ‘detect individuals that are known to the user’] associated with the current location of the user [Fig. 12: ‘Determine Current Scene Type’ 1204; col. 25-27: ‘identifying objects in a particular scene to which the user should be notified’; notification of ‘a restaurant’ or ‘historical data’], and the one or more user characteristics are extracted from a preestablished user profile of the user [col. 4, 25-27: ‘when the user navigates through a particular scene or area, the user can be notified of any objects’; ‘comprehensive object description databases may identify the object as a “Red Ford Taurus”].
Angel does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the POI is determined based on one or more user characteristics associated with the current location of the user, and the one or more user characteristics are extracted from a preestablished user profile of the user.
However in the same field of endeavor Trivedi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the POI is determined based on one or more user characteristics (i.e. ‘one or user-defined POI policies for dynamically identify approaching POI’s’) [para. 0018, 0050-0051: exemplary criteria stored in the user-defined POI policy] associated with the current location of the user, and the one or more user characteristics are extracted from a preestablished user profile of the user [para. 0018: ‘a user profile that, …, includes one or more user-defined POI policies for dynamically identifying approaching POIs to the user based on real-time positional information corresponding to the location of the user’].
Angel and Trivedi are combinable because they are from the same field of navigation systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Angel and Trivedi as motivation to include one or more user-defined POI policies for ‘managed navigational services’ [para. 0013, 0016].
Regarding claim 4, Angel meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Angel does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the POI further comprises: receiving a user input indicating the POI.
However in the same field of endeavor Trivedi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein determining the POI further comprises: receiving a user input indicating the POI [Fig. 6; para. 0018, 0031, 0047, 0054:‘the portal enables users to input corresponding …’, ‘receive user input for creating, customizing, or managing POI content’].
Angel and Trivedi are combinable because they are from the same field of navigation systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Angel and Trivedi as motivation to include one or more user-defined POI policies for ‘managed navigational services’ [para. 0013, 0016].
Regarding claim 5, Angel meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Angel does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the POI further comprises: sending a query for the POI to the user; and receiving a user response indicating the POI.
However in the same field of endeavor Trivedi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein determining the POI further comprises: sending a query for the POI to the user (i.e. a ‘GUI’ provided by navigational platform 101 or ‘the portal’) [Fig. 1; para. 0018, 0020: ‘a GUI interface of client devices 103-107 may be … controlled and provided by navigational platform 101’]; and receiving a user response indicating the POI [Fig. 6; para. 0018, 0020, 0031, 0047, 0054: ‘to search for and acquire POI content’; ‘the portal enables users to input corresponding …’, ‘receive user input for creating, customizing, or managing POI content’].
Angel and Trivedi are combinable because they are from the same field of navigation systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Angel and Trivedi as motivation to include one or more user-defined POI policies for ‘managed navigational services’ [para. 0013, 0016].
Regarding claim 10, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the device form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the device form and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the device form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the device form and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Angel meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 15, wherein the user device is further configured to: receive a user input indicating the POI [Fig. 4: ‘Object ID’: 418, 422]; and send the user input to the central server [Fig. 4; col. 21-23: ‘The controller may then select the more precise object identified (which will typically be determined by the remote image processing system)’; ‘Because the pug object is more precise, the identification may be used …’], wherein the POI is determined by the central server based on the user input (i.e. ‘Dog’ identified as ‘Pug’) [col. 21-23].
Angel does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein the user device is further configured to: receive a user input indicating the POI;
However in the same field of endeavor Trivedi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the user device is further configured to: receive a user input indicating the POI [Fig. 6; para. 0018, 0031, 0047, 0054:‘the portal enables users to input corresponding …’, ‘receive user input for creating, customizing, or managing POI content’].
Angel and Trivedi are combinable because they are from the same field of navigation systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Angel and Trivedi as motivation to include one or more user-defined POI policies for ‘managed navigational services’ [para. 0013, 0016].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights