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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1, 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson (US 20220292543 A1) in view of Wheeler (US 9035878 B1) and further view of Faulkner et al (US 20210097776 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson a method implemented by one or more processors (Henderson [0007], “a method … processor storage medium”), the method comprising:
generating, based on interactions of a user with an application on a computing device, an entry that associates content, determined from the interactions, to a classification of physical objects (Henderson [0075], “an informational screen display that instructs the user in the implementation of a novelty item (on interactions of a user with an application on a computing device) … method that would also help to generate a dropdown menu of novelty items types that could define the physical nature of the novelty item (an entry that associates content, determined from the interactions, to a type/classification of physical objects)”);
subsequent to generating the entry that associates the content to the classification of physical objects:
Henderson discloses using computerized glasses
determining, based on sensor data generated by one or more sensors of computerized glasses being worn by the user, that a particular physical object is present in a field of view of the computerized glasses, and has the classification of the entry (Henderson [0173], “contractor may use augmented reality eyewear to visualize the finished construction project before its build due to image matching, pattern recognition and scaling algorithms (based on sensor data generated by one or more sensors of computerized glasses being worn by the user) that can align the parameters of applied virtual elements with parameters of real property (a particular physical object is present in a field of view of the computerized glasses) appurtenances and geographical feature, according to datastores received within a processor. (has the classification of the entry)”); and
in response to determining that the particular physical object is present in the field of view of the computerized glasses and has the classification of the entry (Henderson [0173], “augmented reality experiences may be customizable … The alignment of composite image parameters and real-world object parameters (particular physical object is present in the field of view of the computerized glasses and has the classification of the entry) may further generate a real-time feedback”):
Henderson does disclose
causing the content, associated with the classification in the entry, to be rendered at a display interface, of the computerized glasses, such that the content is displayed simultaneous to the particular physical object being in the field of view of the computerized glasses, wherein the content includes a selectable element
However, Wheeler discloses
causing the content, associated with the classification in the entry, to be rendered at a display interface, of the computerized glasses, such that the content is displayed simultaneous to the particular physical object being in the field of view of the computerized glasses, wherein the content includes a selectable element (Wheeler figs. 2-4; col. 10, l. 8, “FIG. 3B illustrates pointer 304 which activates graphic object 306 … actions may be initiated such that option menu 312 (selectable element) may appear (the content, associated with the classification in the entry, to be rendered at a display interface, of the computerized glasses)”; col. 11, l. 39, “graphic object 404 is shown with a dark background to illustrate its contrast with a lighter area of physical world 416 (figs. 3b, 4 - displayed simultaneous to the particular physical object being in the field of view of the computerized glasses).”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson with Wheeler to display a dropdown menu in conjunction with a real object viewed thru an HMD. This would have been done to enable users to conveniently choose options for displayed objects.
Henderson in view of Wheeler does not disclose
that is selectable via an automated assistant that is accessible via the computerized glasses (Faulkner [0040], “generating realistic and detailed visual interplay between visual representation of the virtual assistant with other virtual objects and physical objects (a selectable element that is selectable via an automated assistant) in the computer-generated environment”; [0042], “a head-mounted device (HMD)”; [0055], “the interactions happen in a space in front of the HMD and the responses of the CGR content are displayed via the HMD.”), and
wherein a selection of the selectable element causes the automated assistant to interact with the application.
However, Faulkner discloses
that is selectable via an automated assistant that is accessible via the computerized glasses, and wherein a selection of the selectable element causes the automated assistant to interact with the application (Faulkner [0040], “generating realistic and detailed visual interplay between visual representation of the virtual assistant with other virtual objects and physical objects (automated assistant to interact with an application) in the computer-generated environment”; [0140], “(e.g., a virtual assistant, a document, media item, etc.) that can be manipulated by user inputs or provides information or feedback in the three-dimensional environment.”; [0261], “virtual assistant … assistant to perform a … starting a communication session, starting an application, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson further with Faulkner to generate and interactive virtual assistant for interacting with applications. This would have enhanced Henderson by presenting an interactive visual environment and enabling users to easily interact with the environment.
Regarding claim 8, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the content to be rendered comprises causing the content to be rendered at a location, in the display interface, that is determined based on one or more physical attributes of the particular physical object (Henderson [0209], “The dynamic tetrahedral mesh further comprises edges representing line of sight in critical angle calculations whereby reflectance or refraction attributes of lighting, or virtualized object shadow depths according to real-world object characteristics”).
Regarding claim 9, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the content to be rendered comprises causing the content to be rendered at a location, in the display interface, that is determined to prevent the image from overlapping a majority of the particular physical object within the field of view (Wheeler fig. 3b – Dropdown menu does not majorly cover underlying object).
Claim 19 recites Computerized glasses which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the Computerized glasses of claim 19.
Additionally, Henderson discloses
one or more sensors (Henderson [0124], “sensors”);
a display interface (Henderson [0046], “an interactive screen display”);
memory storing instructions (Henderson [0213], “memory stores a set of instructions”); and
one or more processors operable to execute the instructions (Henderson [0213], “processing machine,” such as a general-purpose computer, for example. As used herein, the term “processing machine” is to be understood to include at least one processor that uses at least one memory. The at least one memory stores a set of instructions.”).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Ma et al (US 20220157027 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the content identifies a geographic location, and wherein causing the computerized glasses to render the content is further in response to determining that the computerized glasses are within a threshold distance of the geographic location.
However, Ma discloses
the content identifies a geographic location, and wherein causing the computerized glasses to render the content is further in response to determining that the computerized glasses are within a threshold distance of the geographic location (Ma [0065], “an object can include a point of interest (e.g., a park, building) associated with a specific geographic location depicted by a XR device”; [0107], “Responsive to determining that the distance between the geographic position of the object and the location of the XR device (fig. 2A computerized glasses) has updated to be less than the second threshold, the glint can be presented as attached to the object that is related to the glint.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson further with Ma to utilize a feature to determine objects within a user’s HMD threshold and render virtual content. This would have enhanced Matsuda by enabling users to view a variety of virtual content within an environment.
Claim 11 recites a method which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 2. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 2 above is considered applicable to the method of claim 11.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Ma and further view of Matsuda (US 20130027430 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
But does not disclose determining, based on the sensor data, certain information that is being conveyed by the particular physical object when the physical object is within the field of view of the computerized glasses, wherein the content is based on the certain information being conveyed by the particular physical object, and the interactions.
However Matsuda discloses
determining, based on the sensor data, certain information that is being conveyed by the particular physical object when the physical object is within the field of view of the computerized glasses, wherein the content is based on the certain information being conveyed by the particular physical object, and the interactions (Matsuda fig. 1; The calendar physical object is with the FOV of user HMDs; A gesture recognition unit 180 (comprised in an application) recognizes a user's real-world gesture toward a calendar (user interaction) which is detected by the calendar detection unit 140 in the input image.” [0094], “the output image generation unit 160 determines where each schedule item included in the schedule data is displayed based on the position of a date on the calendar as a result of the analysis by analyzing unit”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson further with Matsuda to enable users to interact with scheduling objects. This would have been done to enable users to easily view and schedule desired events.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Ma and further view of Matsuda and further view of Karunamuni et al (US 20230359315 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Ma and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 3, but does not disclose wherein the certain information includes an indication of a current time, and the content includes another indication of an amount of time until an event that is associated with the application.
However, Karunamuni discloses
wherein the certain information includes an indication of a current time, and the content includes another indication of an amount of time until an event that is associated with the application (Karunamuni figs. 5S (Time corresponds to current time) and 5BL; [0220], “he session region 502-7 displays an application icon (e.g., the timer icon (an amount of time until an event that is associated with the application) to the left of the sensors) identifying an application associated with the active session”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson further with Karunamuni to display current time and time associated with an application. This would have been done to enhance a user’s experience by displaying relevant and helpful information.
Claims 5-7, 10, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda (US 20130027430 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the particular physical object is a calendar and wherein the content includes a date that is based on the interactions.
However, Matsuda discloses
wherein the particular physical object is a calendar and wherein the content includes a date that is based on the interactions (Matsuda fig. 9 – dates on the physical calendar; [0064], “An output image generation unit 160 generates an output image obtained by associating one or more information elements included in schedule data in the form of a list of dated information with a date corresponding to each information element and superimposing the associated information elements on a calendar”; [0084], “A gesture recognition unit 180 recognizes a user's real-world gesture toward a calendar (user interaction) which is detected by the calendar detection unit 140 in the input image.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson further with Matsuda to enable users to interact with scheduling objects. This would have been done to enable users to easily view and schedule desired events.
Regarding claim 6, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 5, wherein causing the content to be rendered comprises causing the content to be rendered at a location, in the display interface, that is determined based on where the date is indicated on the calendar (Matsuda fig. 11; [0094], “the output image generation unit 160 determines where each schedule item included in the schedule data is displayed based on the position of a date on the calendar as a result of the analysis by analyzing unit … The output image generation unit 160 then generates an output image obtained by superimposing each schedule item at the determined position of display and causes the display unit 170 to display the generated output image”).
Regarding claim 7, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the location is determined to not overlap where the date is indicated on the calendar (Matsuda [0069], “For example, the first schedule item (an upcoming event identified by the calendar application) indicates schedule of Apr. 6, 2010. The "date" field may indicate a period with a commencing date and an end date instead of a single date.” - fig. 11 – location of images related to the tasks do not overlap the date.).
Claim 10 recites a method which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the method of claim 10.
Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner does not disclose
determining, based on the sensor data, certain information that is being conveyed by the particular physical object when the physical object is within the field of view of the computerized glasses,
determining content based on the certain information being conveyed by the particular physical object and based on the application content that is determined from the interactions of the user with the application
However, Matsuda discloses
Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner does not disclose
determining, based on the sensor data, certain information that is being conveyed by the particular physical object when the physical object is within the field of view of the computerized glasses (Matsuda fig. 1; The calendar physical object is with the FOV of user HMDs; A gesture recognition unit 180 (comprised in an application) recognizes a user's real-world gesture toward a calendar (user interaction) which is detected by the calendar detection unit 140 in the input image.” [0094], “the output image generation unit 160 determines where each schedule item included in the schedule data is displayed based on the position of a date on the calendar as a result of the analysis by analyzing unit”).,
determining content based on the certain information being conveyed by the particular physical object and based on the application content that is determined from the interactions of the user with the application (Matsuda [0084], “A gesture recognition unit 180 (comprised in an application) recognizes a user's real-world gesture toward a calendar (user interaction) which is detected by the calendar detection unit 140 in the input image.” [0094], “the output image generation unit 160 determines where each schedule item included in the schedule data is displayed based on the position of a date on the calendar as a result of the analysis by analyzing unit”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson further with Matsuda to enable users to interact with scheduling objects. This would have been done to enable users to easily view and schedule desired events.
Regarding claim 14, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the particular physical object is a calendar and wherein the content includes a date (Matsuda fig. 9 – dates on the physical calendar; [0064], “An output image generation unit 160 generates an output image obtained by associating one or more information elements included in schedule data in the form of a list of dated information with a date corresponding to each information element and superimposing the associated information elements on a calendar”).
Regarding claim 15, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 14, wherein causing the content to be rendered comprises causing the content to be rendered at a location, in the display interface, that is determined based on where the date is indicated on the calendar (Matsuda fig. 11; [0094], “the output image generation unit 160 determines where each schedule item included in the schedule data is displayed based on the position of a date on the calendar as a result of the analysis by analyzing unit … The output image generation unit 160 then generates an output image obtained by superimposing each schedule item at the determined position of display and causes the display unit 170 to display the generated output image”).
Regarding claim 16, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the location is determined to not overlap where the date is indicated on the calendar (Matsuda [0069], “For example, the first schedule item (an upcoming event identified by the calendar application) indicates schedule of Apr. 6, 2010. The "date" field may indicate a period with a commencing date and an end date instead of a single date.” - fig. 11 – location of images related to the tasks do not overlap the date.).
Regarding claim 17, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 10, wherein causing the content to be rendered comprises causing the content to be rendered at a location, in the display interface, that is determined based on one or more physical attributes of the particular physical object (Henderson [0209], “The dynamic tetrahedral mesh further comprises edges representing line of sight in critical angle calculations whereby reflectance or refraction attributes of lighting, or virtualized object shadow depths according to real-world object characteristics”).
Regarding claim 18, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 10, wherein causing the content to be rendered comprises causing the content to be rendered at a location, in the display interface, that is determined to prevent the image from overlapping a majority of the particular physical object within the field of view (Wheeler fig. 3b – Dropdown menu does not majorly cover underlying object).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda and further view of Matsuda and further view of Karunamuni et al (US 20230359315 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda discloses the method of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the certain information includes an indication of a current time.
However, Karunamuni discloses
wherein the certain information includes an indication of a current time (Karunamuni figs. 5S (Time corresponds to current time) and 5BL; [0220], “he session region 502-7 displays an application icon (e.g., the timer icon to the left of the sensors) identifying an application associated with the active session”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson further with Karunamuni to display current time and time associated with an application. This would have been done to enhance a user’s experience by displaying relevant and helpful information.
Regarding claim 13, Henderson in view of Wheeler and further view of Faulkner and further view of Matsuda and further view of Karunamuni discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the content includes another indication of an amount of time until an event that is associated with the application (Karunamuni figs. 5S and 5BL; [0220], “he session region 502-7 displays an application icon (e.g., the timer icon (an amount of time until an event that is associated with the application) to the left of the sensors) identifying an application associated with the active session”).
Conclusion
See the notice of references cited (PTO-892) for prior art made of record, including art that is not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JITESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3313. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JITESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights