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
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103.
Applicant argues:
Independent claim 1 recites two coordinated limitations: "detecting a wristwatch worn by a user entering a center region of a field of view of the AR eyewear device," and "in response to detecting the wristwatch entering the center region, activating an AR display to present an application menu interface." Read together, these limitations define a spatially-gated activation trigger. The triggering event is the entry of the wristwatch into a defined center region of the field of view, and it is that entry, and only that entry, that activates the AR display.
Kim discloses no such trigger. Kim is directed to "processing a screen by using a device," in which a second device, a head-mounted display, obtains a display screen from a first device "according to a screen display request regarding the first device" and displays an "additional screen" near the display of the first device. (Kim, Abstract; [0125]-[0126].) In Kim, the additional screens are generated and displayed in response to a screen display request and the camera-based recognition of the object by the head-mounted display, wherever that object happens to be recognized within the field of view. (Kim [0122] ("the second device 2000 recognizes the object using a camera"); [0125].) Kim recognizes the watch object wherever it appears in the camera view; it nowhere defines a "center region" of the field of view, and it nowhere teaches activating a display in response to a wristwatch entering such a region. The request-driven, location- agnostic display of additional screens in Kim is fundamentally different from the recited center- region entry trigger, and Kim therefore cannot render claim 1 obvious.
The Examiner appears to acknowledge as much. In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action
states that "further clarification of the 'center region' would likely overcome the current prior art." (Office Action, p. 3.) Applicant respectfully submits that the claim already recites the operative distinction. The limitations "detecting a wristwatch worn by a user entering a center region of a field of view" and "in response to detecting the wristwatch entering the center region, activating an AR display" expressly require the spatially-gated trigger that Kim does not disclose. Because Kim lacks this trigger, the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn.
Examiner replies that:
Applicants arguments are not found persuasive. The claim recites the wristwatch entering a center region of a field of view of the AR device, but the claim fails to in any way define the center region of the field of view. For example, the center region is not defined as a subsection that is smaller than the FOV and no boundaries are defined. The center region reasonably encompasses the entire displayable field of view, such that when the wristwatch is outside the FOV and then enters the FOV, it also enters the center region. This is a reasonable under a broadest reasonable interpretation since this is a standard and common function of an AR device, where the AR device is not typically attempting to detect the wristwatch outside of the view or activate the menu information when the watch is not in view.
Applicant argues:
The rejection further rests on an improper combination of disparate embodiments of Kim. The Office Action concedes that the recited elements appear, if at all, across "two or more embodiments" of Kim, and supports the rejection only with the conclusory assertion that one of ordinary skill "aware of one embodiment would also have been aware of the others" and that it would have been obvious "to have combined these elements from two or more embodiments into a single arrangement for the benefit of enjoying the advantages of all the embodiments disclosed." (Office Action, p. 3.) A proper obviousness rejection must articulate reasoning with some rational underpinning; "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); MPEP § 2143. The Office Action offers no reason why a person of ordinary skill would have selected and assembled the separate embodiments of Kim into the single claimed interface that detects a wristwatch entering a center region, anchors a menu to the wristwatch, and within that one anchored menu simultaneously displays application icons, system function controls, and device status indicators. Absent such reasoning, the rejection cannot be sustained.
Examiner replies that:
Applicants arguments are not found persuasive. Examiner did not concede that recited elements may not appear. Although examiner noted it is disclosed in several embodiments, Kim recites “embodiment” 120 times across 37 pages, where the use of “embodiment” here is largely a drafting form and does not create mutually exclusive embodiments nor separate inventions but rather just discloses features usable together. Kim explicitly indicates that elements described as being dispersed may be combined (Kim C28 L1-5 “It should be understood that various embodiments described herein should be considered in a descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation. Descriptions of feature points or aspects within each embodiment of the present disclosure, should typically be considered as available for other similar feature points or aspects in other various embodiments. For example, elements described as being included in a single unit may be dispersed. Similarly, elements described as being dispersed may be combined in a single unit.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, 18 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. The claims recite “detecting removal of the wristwatch from the center region of the field of view and in response to the removal, deactivating the AR display if no selections were made within the application menu interface “ where there for deactivation is a detection of the wristwatch leaving the center region and a detection as to whether a selection was made from the menu. The prior art does not teach these limitations in combination with the other limitations.
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, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20160109937.
Regarding claim 1 (independent):
An augmented reality (AR) eyewear device implemented method for presenting an application menu interface, the method comprising: (Kim Abstract A method and an apparatus for processing a screen by using a device are provided. The method includes obtaining, at the second device, a display screen displayed on the first device and information related to the display screen according to a screen display request regarding the first device, determining, at the second device, an additional screen based on the display screen on the first device and the information related to the display screen, and displaying the additional screen near the display screen on the first device.)
detecting a wristwatch worn by a user entering a center region of a field of view of the AR eyewear device (Kim [0097] Here, the object 42 that is in the form of an actual watch is an image of an actual watch viewed via a lens of the HMD, and the additional screens 52, 62, 72, and 82 are virtual images viewed near the image of the actual watch via a display unit of the HMD.)(Kim [0122] In operation 370, the second device 2000 recognizes the object using a camera, based on the object-related information, and transmits information indicating a result of recognizing the object to the first device 1000.)(Kim [0214] The control unit 2600 may receive data from, for example, the camera 2050 or user input units 2040, analyze the received data, and generate information to be transmitted to a user of the HMD device via at least one of the display unit 2030 and an audio output unit 2020. The information to be transmitted to the user may include at least one among an image, a text, a video, and audio but is not limited thereto.)(Kim [0215] For example, the camera 2050 may be mounted on a location determined beforehand to be appropriate for obtaining an image by making a gesture using a user's hand. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 22, the camera 2050 may be mounted on a location adjacent to a user's eyes when the user wears the HMD device and be thus capable of capturing an image to be substantially the same as that recognized through the user's eyes.) Examiner notes that further clarification of the “center region” would likely overcome the current prior art.
in response to detecting the wristwatch entering the center region, activating an AR display to present an application menu interface (Kim [0125] In operation 380, the second device 2000 determines an additional screen to be displayed on a predetermined location on the object, based on the display information related to the object.)
anchoring the application menu interface to the wristwatch in AR space (Kim [0126] In operation 385, the second device 2000 displays the additional screen on a location corresponding to the object.)
displaying a plurality of application icons (Kim [0102] The additional screens may be, for example, a plurality of virtual images (such as “PHOTO”, “APP”, S-health”, and “Gallery”) which are not displayed on a screen of the first device 1000 due to space restraints of the first device 1000. Examples of the additional screens may include various types of screens that may be displayed on the screen of the first device 1000.)
system function controls, (Kim [0109] A user may change a screen of the first device 1000 by manipulating the additional screens on the second device 2000 or change the additional screens on the second device 2000 by selecting a menu of the first device 1000. The second device 2000 may control the additional screens thereof to be linked to the display screen on the first device 1000 according to a user input that is input for the first device 1000 or that is input by performing a camera recognition gesture on the second device 2000. In this case, the user input for the first device 1000 may be input by performing a specific gesture, a touch input, or a voice input by a user, but is not limited thereto. The user input for the second device 2000 may be input by performing a camera recognition gesture, a touch input, a button input, or a voice input, but is not limited thereto. For example, when a ‘Gallery’ menu on an additional screen displayed to be linked to the display screen on the first device 1000 is touched by performing a specific gesture, the ‘Gallery’ menu may be displayed on the display screen on the first device 1000.) since a user may activate menu items which changes the display, which is a system function control.
and device status indicators (Kim [0205] Examples of the event related to the additional screen generated by the first device 1000 may include receiving a call signal, receiving a message, inputting a key signal, informing a schedule, etc. The notification module 1800 may output this signal in the form of a video signal via the display unit 1200.) where the notification is a status.
within the application menu interface (Kim [0126] In operation 385, the second device 2000 displays the additional screen on a location corresponding to the object.)
recognizing one or more user gestures made in proximity to the anchored application menu interface; interpreting the one or more user gestures as selections within the application menu interface and executing functions or launching applications based on the interpreted selections (Kim [0109] In this case, the user input for the first device 1000 may be input by performing a specific gesture, a touch input, or a voice input by a user, but is not limited thereto. The user input for the second device 2000 may be input by performing a camera recognition gesture, a touch input, a button input, or a voice input, but is not limited thereto. For example, when a ‘Gallery’ menu on an additional screen displayed to be linked to the display screen on the first device 1000 is touched by performing a specific gesture, the ‘Gallery’ menu may be displayed on the display screen on the first device 1000. Also, the first device 1000 may end the additional screen by transmitting a command to end the additional screen to the second device 2000.)
Kim discloses the above elements in several embodiments. With the embodiments being disclosed in a single reference, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention being aware of one embodiment would also have been aware of the others, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have combined these elements from two or more embodiments into a single arrangement for the benefit of enjoying the advantages of all the embodiments disclosed combined into a single arrangement.
Regarding claim 3:
The method of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Kim. Kim further teaches wherein anchoring the application menu interface comprises maintaining the interface in one of:
a fixed position relative to the wristwatch (Kim [0097] Referring to FIG. 7, a plurality of additional screens 52, 62, 72, and 82 are displayed on a glass screen 100 on the second device 2000 to be linked to an object 42 that is in the form of an actual watch. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the additional screens 52, 62, 72, and 82 may be virtual images displayed on a screen of an HMD. Here, the object 42 that is in the form of an actual watch is an image of an actual watch viewed via a lens of the HMD, and the additional screens 52, 62, 72, and 82 are virtual images viewed near the image of the actual watch via a display unit of the HMD.).
Regarding claim 6:
The method of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Kim. Kim further teaches wherein the system function controls include at least:
and time and date information (Kim [0205] informing a schedule,)(Kim [0079] displays a virtual watch on the image of the user's wrist)
Regarding claim 8 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 3. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 6. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 15 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 3. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 20:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 6. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20160109937 in view of Mistry U.S. Patent/PG Publication 8994827.
Regarding claim 2:
The method of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Kim. Kim does not teach weather widgets. In a related field of endeavor, Mistry teaches:
teaches wherein displaying the plurality of application icons comprises displaying one or more widgets that dynamically change appearance based on real-time data, wherein the widgets include at least one of: a weather widget that changes appearance based on current weather conditions (Mistry C49 L30-40 In particular embodiments, the faces of the device need not be associated with any application on the device and may be wallpapers or backgrounds on the display of the device. Faces may be dedicated to specific channels of information (e.g. calendar feeds, health or activity feeds, notifications, weather feeds, or news). As an example, a severe weather notification or alert (received, e.g., from a weather feed) may cause the weather face to be displayed on the display along with the notification.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have weather widgets as taught by Mistry. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with more information. Further, the rationale for doing so would have been that it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results since Kim has a real and virtual watch interface to provide the user with addition watch-related data and Mistry has a watch interface to display data that includes weather, where the end result would be providing the user with weather data on a watch. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Mistry with Kim to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 9:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 2. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 16:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 2. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20160109937 in view of Anderson U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20150222576.
Regarding claim 5:
The method of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Kim. Kim further teaches wherein displaying the plurality of application icons comprises:
initially displaying the application icons at a first size (Kim [0102] The additional screens may be, for example, a plurality of virtual images (such as “PHOTO”, “APP”, S-health”, and “Gallery”) which are not displayed on a screen of the first device 1000 due to space restraints of the first device 1000. Examples of the additional screens may include various types of screens that may be displayed on the screen of the first device 1000.)
and in response to detecting a tap gesture on a particular application icon, (Kim [0067] In this case, the user input for the second device 2000 may be a touch input or a button input which is input by a user but is not limited thereto.)
Kim does not teach enlarging. In a related field of endeavor, Anderson teaches:
initially displaying the application icons at a first size and in response to detecting a tap gesture on a particular application icon, enlarging the particular application icon to enable more granular interaction (Anderson [0044] The icon display module 312 may also be configured to increase and/or decrease the display size of the one or more user-selectable icons 122 based on one or more selections made by the user of the wearable computing device 110. In that way, the icon display module 312 may be configured to "zoom in" and "zoom out" of user-selectable icons 122 and/or quadrants displayed on the display device 130.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to zoom as taught by Anderson. The motivation for doing so would have been increased visibility for accessibility purposes. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Anderson with Kim to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 5. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 19:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 5. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20160109937 in view of Davydov U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20160299570.
Regarding claim 7:
The method of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Kim. Kim does not teach wrist gestures. In a related field of endeavor, Davydov teaches:
detecting a quick wrist-twisting gesture (Davydov [0004] Certain embodiments of the present invention relate to invoking a function of an electronic device using a wrist gesture (e.g., flexion or extension) that is detected by a wrist-worn device. The invoked function can be executed on the wrist-worn device or another device that is in communication with the wrist-worn device. […] Signals from the wristband sensors can be analyzed to identify a specific wrist gesture. The identified gesture can be interpreted to determine a function to be invoked, for instance by reference to a gesture library that maps specific wrist gestures to functions, or actions, of the wrist-worn device.)
interpreting the quick wrist-twisting gesture as an activation command for a predetermined application and launching the predetermined application without requiring navigation through the application menu interface (Davydov [0070] If the wearable device is capable of receiving phone calls (or is paired with another device, such as a mobile phone, that is capable of receiving phone calls), the wearable device can enter an “incoming call” context when a call is received. In this context, the interpretation of certain wrist gestures can change. For example, as shown in table 800, in the incoming-call context, a single extension (line 818) can be used to accept (e.g., answer) an incoming call while a single flexion (line 820) can be used to decline the call (e.g., diverting the call to voice mail). [0071] As another example, a user may launch an app that can provide a list view, such as a list of the user's contacts or a list of media assets available to be played. While viewing such a list, the user can scroll the list using wrist gestures. For example, a flex-and-hold gesture (line 822) can initiate scrolling down, and the scrolling can continue until the user releases the flexion (returning the wrist to a neutral position) or the end of the list is reached. Similarly, an extend-and-hold gesture (line 824) can initiate scrolling up, and the scrolling can continue until the user releases the extension or the beginning of the list is reached. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wrist gestures as taught by Davydov. The motivation for doing so would have been convenience (Davydov [0085]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Davydov with Kim to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 14:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 7. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. 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, seehttp://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.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights