DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of proper language and format for an abstract (see MPEP § 608.01(b)):
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “The present disclosure provides” is a phrase which can be implied and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because as drafted, the claimed invention includes embodiments that are inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite: “determine, based on at least the one or more non-visible orientation cues and the at least one visible orientation cues, an orientation of the wearable device” in line 16-17 of Claim 1 with similar language in 14-16 of Claim 10 and line 14-15 of Claim 19.
According to the Specification: “Non-visible orientation cues may not be detected or captured by the image sensors and, instead, may be identified as part of map data” (¶23); “For example, non-visible orientation cues may be orientation cues that are not detected or captured by the image sensors 308” (¶47); “Non-visible orientation cues may be orientation cues that cannot be detected and/or identified using the image sensors of the device as they are not visible with respect to the location of the device” (¶61); and “The non-visible orientation cues may be geographically located objects within the discrete area that are not visible based on the location of the device” (¶91).
In the example as per Figure 5A, an area (526) having a radius (R) measured from the location (522) of the device and a plurality of orientation cues (524) are determined. In the example as per Figure 5B, a reference line (528) is drawn from each orientation cue (524) within the discrete area (524). According to the Specification at ¶64:
The location and distance of each orientation cue 524 may be used to determine the orientation of the device. For example, the orientation of the device may be determined by triangulating the position of the device with the position of the orientation cues.
Accordingly, as drafted, the claimed invention includes embodiments in which the device determines orientation based on matching images in combination with “triangulating the position of the device” from “non-visible orientation cues”. However, it is unclear how such a device could operate.
Specifically, in the examples of Figs. 5A-5B, even if every orientation cue (524) were connected to the location (522) of the device with triangles, the triangles would not be useful for orienting the map in space in that neither the orientation of the location (522) nor the orientation of the cues (524) in space is known. Orientation in space could be determined by the at least one visible orientation cue as by matching newly acquired images to a database of such images linked to heading. However, the orientation cues (524) would not themselves contribute to the determination of orientation.
Put differently, a positioning device that does not have access to heading information is effectively a paper map indicating present position and oriented randomly in the real world. In order to reach a destination with such a map, a user would normally look around their environment to determine their actual orientation in the real world, match their actual orientation in the real world with information on the map, and then navigate a course to a desired location as per the map in view of the matched orientation. Drawing triangles connecting the present position with locations on the map will not be helpful for orienting the map itself in that the information on the map has not been matched to information in the real world. Orientation could be determined with the aid of an image matched to a known direction corresponding to “the at least one visible orientation cues” as claimed, but such orientation would be not informed by a combination of “the at least one visible orientation cues” and “the one or more non-visible orientation cues” in that, as discussed above, the “the one or more non-visible orientation cues” could not themselves contribute anything to the determination of orientation. In this way, the Specification’s explanation that orientation is determined “by triangulating” using non-visible orientation cues is deficient in describing operation of the device.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 10, and 19 as drafted include embodiments that appear to be inoperative. Therefore, Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected for lacking utility. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 do not elaborate on operations to determine orientation. Accordingly, Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite: “determine, based on at least the one or more non-visible orientation cues and the at least one visible orientation cues, an orientation of the wearable device” in line 16-17 of Claim 1 with similar language in 14-16 of Claim 10 and line 14-15 of Claim 19.
According to the Specification: “Typically, a user must begin moving before the device can orient itself and indicate a direction of travel” (¶1); “The user may not be required to move in a certain direction in order to determine orientation, as is the case in conventional methods” (¶24); and “Instead, the user may not be required to move at all since the orientation output does not rely on the user's movement” (¶24).
Further according to the Specification: “Non-visible orientation cues may not be detected or captured by the image sensors and, instead, may be identified as part of map data” (¶23); “For example, non-visible orientation cues may be orientation cues that are not detected or captured by the image sensors 308” (¶47); “Non-visible orientation cues may be orientation cues that cannot be detected and/or identified using the image sensors of the device as they are not visible with respect to the location of the device” (¶61); and “The non-visible orientation cues may be geographically located objects within the discrete area that are not visible based on the location of the device” (¶91).
In view of the Specification, Claims 1, 10, and 19 include embodiments directed to: determining orientation of the wearable device without movement of the device as per conventional methods; and wherein determining orientation is based on “map data” in combination with data from image sensors, the map data involving cues that are not visible at the location of the device. However, the Specification does not provide enabling disclosure for determining orientation from map data in combination with data from image sensors.
In the example as per Figure 5A, an area (526) having a radius (R) measured from the location (522) of the device and a plurality of orientation cues (524) are determined. In the example as per Figure 5B, a reference line (528) is drawn from each orientation cue (524) within the discrete area (524). According to the Specification at ¶64:
The location and distance of each orientation cue 524 may be used to determine the orientation of the device. For example, the orientation of the device may be determined by triangulating the position of the device with the position of the orientation cues.
However, this disclosure is inadequate for making and using a device that determines orientation with cues are non-visible. The Specification calls for “triangulating the position of the device with the position of the orientation cues” to determine orientation. However, even if every orientation cue (524) were connected to the location (522) of the device with triangles, the triangles would not be useful for orienting the map in space in that neither the orientation of the location (522) nor the orientation of the cues (524) in space is known. Orientation in space could be determined by the data from images sensors as by matching newly acquired images to a database of such images linked to heading. However, the orientation cues (524) would not themselves contribute to the determination of orientation.
Put differently, a positioning device that does not have access to heading information is effectively a paper map indicating present position and oriented randomly in the real world. In order to reach a destination with such a map, a user would normally look around their environment to determine their actual orientation in the real world, match their actual orientation in the real world with information on the map, and then navigate a course to a desired location as per the map in view of the matched orientation. Drawing triangles connecting the present position with locations on the map will not be helpful for orienting the map itself in that the information on the map has not been matched to information in the real world. Orientation could be determined with the aid of an image matched to a known direction corresponding to “the at least one visible orientation cues” as claimed, but such orientation would be not informed by a combination of “the at least one visible orientation cues” and “the one or more non-visible orientation cues” in that, as discussed above, the “the one or more non-visible orientation cues” could not themselves contribute anything to the determination of orientation. In this way, the Specification’s explanation that orientation is determined “by triangulating” using non-visible orientation cues is deficient in describing operation of the device.
Similarly, a wearable device cannot derive orientation by a combination of data from one or more image sensors and “one or more non-visible orientation cues” composed of map data in that the “the one or more non-visible orientation cues” composed of map data would itself contribute nothing to the determination of orientation. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to make and use the claimed invention. Therefore, the claimed invention is not enabled as to embodiments for determining orientation with “non-visible orientation cues”.
The following factors must be considered in view of the above when evaluating the claim language (see MPEP 2164.01(a)):
(A) Breadth: absent a specific process for identifying determining orientation “based on … non-visible orientation cues”, the claim language is broad and would include any processes for determining orientation “based on … non-visible orientation cues”;
(B) Nature of Invention: the invention concerns determining an orientation of a wearable device using conventional processors (¶26);
(C) State of the Prior Art: determining the direction a user is facing can be difficult and typically requires information about direction of movement (¶1);
(D) Level of One of Ordinary Skill: one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to determine orientation using information about direction of travel (¶1) and how to make and use computing devices and memory (¶26);
(E) Predictability: it can be difficult for a user to determine the direction he is facing (¶1) and therefore difficult to begin following navigation assistance from devices (¶1); a user may end up traveling in the wrong direction before a device orients itself in view of information about the user’s direction of travel (¶1);
(F) Direction: “only non-visible orientation cues … may be used to determine the orientation of the device” (¶65), but the Specification is deficient as to a process for determining orientation from non-visible orientation cues in that determining orientation “by triangulating” (¶64) is inadequate;
(G) Examples: no working examples are provided by the Specification in that determining orientation “by triangulating” is not adequately described; and
(H) Experimentation: given the lack of disclosure and the nature of the problem, the skilled artisan would effectively be working from scratch and without guidance.
As such, the evidence considered in view of the Wands factors supports a determination that the disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the claimed invention because the process by which orientation is to be determined based on a combination of images and non-visible orientation cues is not adequately explained in the Specification. As such, Claims 1, 10, and 19 contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 10, and 19, and Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 depending from Claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively, are therefore rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 10, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn (US Pub. No. 2011/0135207) in view of Castro (US Pub. No. 2011/0279446), further in view of Johnson (US Patent No. 6,366,856).
As per Claim 1, Flynn discloses an augmented reality system (400) (Fig. 7; ¶37), comprising:
a device (200) (Fig. 2A; ¶25); and
one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402) in communication with the device (200) (Figs. 2A, 7; ¶37, 42), the one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402) configured to:
determine a location of the device (200/312) (Figs. 2A, 5, 6; ¶25, 32-35), the location being within a discrete area (452) (Fig. 5, 8A-C; ¶33, 45-46);
receive data (as per “images of objects” in ¶26 and/or “a picture” in ¶33) from one or more image sensors (216) of the device (200/312) (Figs. 2A, 5, 6; ¶25-26, 32-35);
detect, based on the received data (as per “images of objects” in ¶26 and/or “a picture” in ¶33) from the one or more image sensors (216), at least one visible orientation cue (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43) that corresponds to one or more visible geographically located objects (102), wherein the one or more visible geographically located objects (102) are visible by the device (200/312) from the determined location (Figs. 4-5, 7; ¶29-33, 37-44); and
provide, via the device (200/312), an output (as per “the orientation may indicate the portion of the image that corresponds with looking due north from the camera” in ¶24) indicating the determined orientation (as per “Once the received image is matched … the location and orientation of the mobile user device can be corrected” in ¶44 and “the results may be used to provide corrected location information to the mobile user device” in ¶56) of the device (200/312) as an overlay on a field of view (as per image 100) of a user of the device (200/312).
Flynn does not expressly disclose:
wherein the device is wearable;
determine, based on the discrete area, one or more non-visible orientation cues that correspond to one or more non-visible geographically located objects within the discrete area, wherein the non-visible geographically located objects are non-visible by the device from the determined location;
determine, based on at least the one or more non-visible orientation cues and the at least one visible orientation cue, an orientation of the device; and
wherein using the device involves wearing the device.
Castro discloses a mobile device (101/400) that displays content (Figs. 1, 4A-B; ¶23-25, 66-71). The content is informed by a map database (109a), a content catalog (109b), and a content mapping platform (103) that interacts with an application (107) on the mobile device (101/400), the application (107) causing a rendering of a graphic representation relating to the content on a surface of the object visible in the perspective view of the mobile device (101/400) (Figs. 1, 3A, 4A-B; ¶38-40, 61-65, 66-71). In a map view, the map shows graphic representations for objects and distinguishes between objects that a visible in the perspective view and objects that are hidden from view in the perspective view (¶37). In one embodiment, the application (107) provides an alternative graphic representation in the form of a transparent image relating to content information in the perspective view at a location of the hidden object/POI (¶65). In this way, the user may be aware of the presence of hidden objects (¶65). Embodiments for the mobile device (101) include a mobile handset, desktop computer, and a wearable interface (¶43). Like Flynn, Castro is concerned with positioning systems.
Johnson discloses a wireless telephone (2) that outputs a map in a display (4) (Fig. 1; 4:6-21). In operation, the map in the display (4) is oriented consistent with the direction the user is facing and north is oriented on the top of the map (Figs. 2A-D; 4:36-5:20). Determining the appropriate orientation involves recalling a current map heading offset (74), calculating a new heading offset (82) based in information from GPS bearing (76) or magnetic compass bearing (80), and comparing (84) the current map heading offset (74) to the new heading offset (82) (Fig. 5; 7:35-67). In this way, orientation is determined based on map data (as per current map heading offset 74) and data from sensors (as per 76/80). In this way, the system facilitates virtual rotation (4:22-35). Like Flynn, Johnson is concerned with positioning systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; and facilitating virtual rotation. Applying the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the device is wearable” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro;
to “determine, based on the discrete area, one or more non-visible orientation cues that correspond to one or more non-visible geographically located objects within the discrete area, wherein the non-visible geographically located objects are non-visible by the device from the determined location” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by determinations of visible and hidden objects within the map data as per Castro;
to “determine, based on at least the one or more non-visible orientation cues and the at least one visible orientation cue, an orientation of the device” in that determining orientation as per Flynn would be informed by determinations of visible and hidden objects within the map data as per Castro and determinations of heading involving heading as per map data as well as heading as per sensor data as per Johnson; and
“wherein using the device involves wearing the device” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more non-visible orientation cues includes a park, a body of water, an intersection, a historical landmark, a monument, a building, a town, a district, or a transit station.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro. Castro further discloses wherein the one or more non-visible orientation cues includes a type of landmark (¶21, 37, 65).
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; and facilitating virtual rotation.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Flynn further discloses wherein the device (200) includes the one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42).
Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the device is wearable.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; and facilitating virtual rotation. Applying the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates: “wherein the device is wearable” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Flynn further discloses wherein the one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402) are further configured to filter the one or more orientation cues (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43) based on at least one of:
(i) a ranking (as per “match confidence indicator” in ¶52) of the one or more orientation cues (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43), the ranking (as per “match confidence indicator” in ¶52) being based on a radial prominence of each of the one or more orientation cues (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43) from the location of the device (200/312),
{(ii) a distribution of the one or more non-visible orientation cues, the distribution being among a plurality of parcels}, or
{(iii) an identification of the one or more non-visible orientation cues located within the discrete area, the discrete area being at least one map tile}.
Flynn does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more orientation cues are non-visible; and
wherein the device is wearable.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; and facilitating virtual rotation. Applying the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the one or more orientation cues are non-visible” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by determinations of visible and hidden objects within the map data as per Castro; and
“wherein the device is wearable” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro.
As per Claim 10, Flynn discloses a method (as per operation of system 400) (Fig. 7; ¶37), comprising:
determining, by one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402), a location of a device (200/312) (Figs. 2A, 5, 6; ¶25, 32-35), the location being within a discrete area (452) (Fig. 5, 8A-C; ¶33, 45-46);
receiving, by one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402), data (as per “images of objects” in ¶26 and/or “a picture” in ¶33) from one or more image sensors (216) of the device (200/312) (Figs. 2A, 5, 6; ¶25-26, 32-35);
detecting, by one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402) based on the received data (as per “images of objects” in ¶26 and/or “a picture” in ¶33) from the one or more image sensors (216), at least one visible orientation cue (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43) that corresponds to one or more visible geographically located objects (102), wherein the one or more visible geographically located objects (102) are visible by the device (200/312) from the determined location (Figs. 4-5, 7; ¶29-33, 37-44); and
providing for output (as per “the orientation may indicate the portion of the image that corresponds with looking due north from the camera” in ¶24), by one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402) via the device (200/312), an output (as per “the orientation may indicate the portion of the image that corresponds with looking due north from the camera” in ¶24) indicating the determined orientation (as per “Once the received image is matched … the location and orientation of the mobile user device can be corrected” in ¶44 and “the results may be used to provide corrected location information to the mobile user device” in ¶56) of the device as an overlay on a field of view (as per image 100) of a user of the device (200/312).
Flynn does not expressly disclose:
wherein the device is wearable;
determining, by one or more processors based on the discrete area, one or more non-visible orientation cues that correspond to one or more non-visible geographically located objects within the discrete area, wherein the non-visible geographically located objects are non-visible by the device from the determined location;
determining, by one or more processors based on at least the one or more non-visible orientation cues and the at least one visible orientation cue, an orientation of the device; and
wherein using the device involves wearing the device.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; and facilitating virtual rotation. Applying the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the device is wearable” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro;
by “determining, by one or more processors based on the discrete area, one or more non-visible orientation cues that correspond to one or more non-visible geographically located objects within the discrete area, wherein the non-visible geographically located objects are non-visible by the device from the determined location” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by determinations of visible and hidden objects within the map data as per Castro;
by “determining, by one or more processors based on at least the one or more non-visible orientation cues and the at least one visible orientation cue, an orientation of the device” in that determining orientation as per Flynn would be informed by determinations of visible and hidden objects within the map data as per Castro and determinations of heading involving heading as per map data as well as heading as per sensor data as per Johnson; and
“wherein using the device involves wearing the device” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more non-visible orientation cues includes a park, a body of water, an intersection, a historical landmark, a monument, a building, a town, a district, or a transit station.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro. Castro further discloses wherein the one or more non-visible orientation cues includes a type of landmark (¶21, 37, 65).
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; and facilitating virtual rotation.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Flynn further discloses filtering, by the one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402), the one or more orientation cues (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43) based on at least one of:
(i) a ranking (as per “match confidence indicator” in ¶52) of the one or more orientation cues (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43), the ranking (as per “match confidence indicator” in ¶52) being based on a radial prominence of each of the one or more orientation cues (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43) from the location of the device (200/312),
{(ii) a distribution of the one or more non-visible orientation cues, the distribution being among a plurality of parcels}, or
{(iii) an identification of the one or more non-visible orientation cues located within the discrete area, the discrete area being at least one map tile}.
Flynn does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more orientation cues are non-visible; and
wherein the device is wearable.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; and facilitating virtual rotation. Applying the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the one or more orientation cues are non-visible” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by determinations of visible and hidden objects within the map data as per Castro; and
“wherein the device is wearable” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro.
As per Claim 19, Flynn discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (404; “memory” in ¶42) for storing instructions (406) that, when executed by one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402), cause the one or more processors (as per “having a processor” in ¶42; 402) to perform operations comprising:
determining a location of a device (200/312) (Figs. 2A, 5, 6; ¶25, 32-35), the location being within a discrete area (452) (Fig. 5, 8A-C; ¶33, 45-460;
receiving data (as per “images of objects” in ¶26 and/or “a picture” in ¶33) from one or more image sensors (216) of the device (200/312) (Figs. 2A, 5, 6; ¶25-26, 32-35);
detecting, based on the received data (as per “images of objects” in ¶26 and/or “a picture” in ¶33) from the one or more image sensors (216), at least one visible orientation cue (as per “determine whether an object of interest is a place such as a building, the picture is matched” in ¶43) that corresponds to one or more visible geographically located objects (102), wherein the one or more visible geographically located objects (102) are visible by the device (200/312) from the determined location (Figs. 4-5, 7; ¶29-33, 37-44); and
providing for output (as per “the orientation may indicate the portion of the image that corresponds with looking due north from the camera” in ¶24), via the device (200/312), an output (as per “the orientation may indicate the portion of the image that corresponds with looking due north from the camera” in ¶24) indicating the determined orientation (as per “Once the received image is matched … the location and orientation of the mobile user device can be corrected” in ¶44 and “the results may be used to provide corrected location information to the mobile user device” in ¶56) of the device (200/312) as an overlay on a field of view (as per image 100) of a user of the device (200/312).
Flynn does not expressly disclose:
wherein the device is wearable;
determining, based on the discrete area, one or more non-visible orientation cues that correspond to one or more non-visible geographically located objects within the discrete area, wherein the non-visible geographically located objects are non-visible by the device from the determined location;
determining, based on at least the one or more non-visible orientation cues and the at least one visible orientation cue, an orientation of the device; and
wherein using the device involves wearing the device.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; and facilitating virtual rotation. Applying the teachings of Castro and Johnson to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the device is wearable” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro;
by “determining, based on the discrete area, one or more non-visible orientation cues that correspond to one or more non-visible geographically located objects within the discrete area, wherein the non-visible geographically located objects are non-visible by the device from the determined location” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by determinations of visible and hidden objects within the map data as per Castro;
by “determining, based on at least the one or more non-visible orientation cues and the at least one visible orientation cue, an orientation of the device” in that determining orientation as per Flynn would be informed by determinations of visible and hidden objects within the map data as per Castro and determinations of heading involving heading as per map data as well as heading as per sensor data as per Johnson; and
“wherein using the device involves wearing the device” in that adapting the mobile device as per Flynn for wearable use would be a matter of design choice according to Castro.
Claim 2-4, 6, 11-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn (US Pub. No. 2011/0135207) in view of Castro (US Pub. No. 2011/0279446), further in view of Johnson (US Patent No. 6,366,856), further in view of Upstill (US Patent No. 8,239,130).
As per Claim 2, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein:
the discrete area is further partitioned into a plurality of parcels,
the plurality of parcels are equally distributed around the determined location of the wearable device, and
each parcel of the plurality of parcels includes at least one of the one or more non-visible orientation cues.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
Upstill discloses a user device (101) that provides location information (e.g., 109, 110) (Figs. 1-3; 14:3-40, 17:3-18:23). In one embodiment, the device (101) operates by generating a predefined discrete area (per “geographic area” in 17:7) that is at least one map tile of a plurality of map tiles (as per “divided using a grid system” in 20:29-30) that define a larger geographical region (per “geographic area” in 17:7) (Figs. 1-3; 14:3-40, 17:3-18:23). Upstill further discloses wherein the discrete area (as per “geographic area” in 17:7) is further partitioned into a plurality of parcels (as per “divided using a grid system” in 20:29-30), wherein the plurality of parcels (as per “divided using a grid system” in 20:29-30) are equally distributed around the determined location (as per 1002) of the user device (101) (Figs. 4, 10; 20:8-38, 25:7-49, 34:29-35:24). In this way, the system operates to facilitate information retrieval regarding POIs that the user may be interested in (5:53-6:2). Like Flynn, Upstill is concerned with positioning systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval. Applying the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates “wherein each parcel of the plurality of parcels includes at least one of the one or more non-visible orientation cues” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to match hidden objects of interest as per Castro within each geographic area as divided using a grid system as per Upstill.
As per Claim 3, the combination of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of parcels includes a first type of non-visible orientation cues.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval. Applying the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates “wherein at least two of the plurality of parcels includes a first type of non-visible orientation cues” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to match hidden objects of interest as per Castro within each geographic area as divided using a grid system as per Upstill.
As per Claim 4, the combination of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the first type of non-visible orientation cues includes a park or a body of water.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson. Castro further discloses wherein the one or more non-visible orientation cues includes a park (¶21, 32, 37, 65).
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the discrete area is at least one map tile of a plurality of map tiles, the plurality of map tiles corresponding to a larger geographical region.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval.
As per Claim 11, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein:
the discrete area is further partitioned into a plurality of parcels,
the plurality of parcels are equally distributed around the determined location of the wearable device, and
each parcel of the plurality of parcels includes at least one of the one or more non- visible orientation cues.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval. Applying the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates “wherein each parcel of the plurality of parcels includes at least one of the one or more non-visible orientation cues” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to match hidden objects of interest as per Castro within each geographic area as divided using a grid system as per Upstill.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of parcels includes a first type of non-visible orientation cues.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval. Applying the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates “wherein at least two of the plurality of parcels includes a first type of non-visible orientation cues” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to match hidden objects of interest as per Castro within each geographic area as divided using a grid system as per Upstill.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the first type of non-visible orientation cues includes a park or a body of water.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson. Castro further discloses wherein the one or more non-visible orientation cues includes a park (¶21, 32, 37, 65).
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the discrete area is at least one map tile of a plurality of map tiles, the plurality of map tiles corresponding to a larger geographical region.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of map tiles are equal in size.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill. Upstill further discloses wherein each of the plurality of map tiles (as per “divided using a grid system” in 20:29-30) are equal in size (as per “uniform square-shaped geographical areas” in 20:24-38).
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval.
As per Claim 20, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein:
the discrete area is further partitioned into a plurality of parcels,
the plurality of parcels are equally distributed around the determined location of the wearable device, and
each parcel of the plurality of parcels includes at least one of the one or more non- visible orientation cues.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Upstill.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Upstill, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and facilitating information retrieval. Applying the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to the system of Flynn would result in a system that operates “wherein each parcel of the plurality of parcels includes at least one of the one or more non-visible orientation cues” in that the system of Flynn would be informed by Castro, Johnson, and Upstill to match hidden objects of interest as per Castro within each geographic area as divided using a grid system as per Upstill.
Claim 9 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn (US Pub. No. 2011/0135207) in view of Castro (US Pub. No. 2011/0279446), further in view of Johnson (US Patent No. 6,366,856), further in view of Fedosov (US Pub. No. 2016/0240011).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the output includes at least one of a map orientated in the determined orientation of the wearable device such that the map is oriented to correspond to a heading of the wearable device, an indication on the map identifying the determined orientation of the wearable device, a field of view corresponding to the determined orientation of the wearable device, a panorama rendering corresponding to the determined orientation of the wearable device, or a three-dimensional rendering corresponding to the determined orientation of the wearable device.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
Fedosov discloses a mobile device (1a01) that includes a camera which operates to capture on image of a real environment or part of a real environment and a processing device (1a09) which operates to display the images with indicators (1a04) and annotations (1a05) of points of interest on a touchscreen (1a02) of the mobile device (1a01) (Fig. 1A; ¶69). In operation, displaying points of interest in a view of the real environment involves determining the heading direction (8003) of the mobile device in the real environment (Fig. 8; ¶72-73). If the user tilts the screen without changing it heading direction, the image positions of the indicators (1a04) will change accordingly while displayed annotates (1a05) will stay at substantially the same positions on the screen (Fig. 7a, 7B; ¶109). If the user moves the screen to another heading direction and capturing a second image, image positions of the indicators (1a04) will change accordingly and the annotations (1a05) will also move on the screen according to changes between the image position of the indicators (1a04) in the original image and the second image (¶110). As such, Fedosov discloses wherein the output (as per image, indicators 1a04 and annotations 1a05 within screen 1a02) includes at least one of … a field of view (as per image, indicators 1a04 and annotations 1a05 within screen 1a02 responsive to changes in heading) corresponding to the determined orientation of the user device (1a01). In this way, the system improves usability (¶109). Like Flynn, Fedosov is concerned with positioning systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Fedosov, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Fedosov to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and improving usability.
As per Claim 18, the combination of Flynn, Castro, and Johnson teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Flynn does not expressly disclose wherein the output includes at least one of a map orientated in the determined orientation of the wearable device such that the map is oriented to correspond to a heading of the wearable device, an indication on the map identifying the determined orientation of the wearable device, a field of view corresponding to the determined orientation of the wearable device, a panorama rendering corresponding to the determined orientation of the wearable device, or a three-dimensional rendering corresponding to the determined orientation of the wearable device.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Castro and Johnson.
See rejection of Claim 9 for discussion of teachings of Fedosov.
Therefore, from these teachings of Flynn, Castro, Johnson, and Fedosov, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Castro, Johnson, and Fedosov to the system of Flynn since doing so would enhance the system by: making the user aware of hidden objects; facilitating virtual rotation; and improving usability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2006/0074549), Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2006/0195858), Hamynen (US Pub. No. 2007/0162942), Alter (US Pub. No. 2009/0293012), Platonov (US Pub. No. 2012/0114178), Ledlie (US Pub. No. 2012/0220308), Nurmi (US Pub. No. 2012/0221241), and Oren (US Pub. No. 2014/0018094) disclose positioning systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights