DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 05/19/2025 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “proximate” in claims 1-2, 9, 11-12, and 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear how large a distance may be while still being considered “proximate.”
Claims 3-8, 10, and 13-18 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and are therefore rejected based on their dependency to previously rejected claims.
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, these claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method, system, and medium for augmented reality assisted pedestrian guidance. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for Augmented Reality (AR) assisted pedestrian guidance, the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, via one or more processors of an AR device, route information for a route to be traversed by a pedestrian wearing an AR viewer paired with the AR device, wherein the route information is obtained from a navigation application executing on the AR device;
determining, via the one or more processors, a field of view of the AR viewer;
obtaining, from an image sensor coupled to the AR viewer, a set of image data of an environment included within the field of view of the AR viewer;
identifying, via the one or more processors, a point of interest (POI) related to the route within the field of view of the AR viewer, wherein the POI is a non-virtual object or location;
detecting, via the one or more processors, environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI; and
in response to detecting the environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI, causing, via the one or more processors, the navigation application executing on the AR device to present navigational instructions for the route via an AR display of the AR viewer that includes an AR indication related to the POI.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, “determining…a field of view of the AR viewer” includes a human operator observing the area visible in a display of an AR viewer. The “identifying… a point of interest (POI) related to the route within the field of view of the AR viewer, wherein the POI is a non-virtual object or location” step includes a human observing and mentally determining an object or location to navigate towards. The “detecting…environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI” step includes a human observing and mentally determining whether the area surrounding the POI is light or dark. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for Augmented Reality (AR) assisted pedestrian guidance, the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, via one or more processors of an AR device, route information for a route to be traversed by a pedestrian wearing an AR viewer paired with the AR device, wherein the route information is obtained from a navigation application executing on the AR device;
determining, via the one or more processors, a field of view of the AR viewer;
obtaining, from an image sensor coupled to the AR viewer, a set of image data of an environment included within the field of view of the AR viewer;
identifying, via the one or more processors, a point of interest (POI) related to the route within the field of view of the AR viewer, wherein the POI is a non-virtual object or location;
detecting, via the one or more processors, environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI; and
in response to detecting the environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI, causing, via the one or more processors, the navigation application executing on the AR device to present navigational instructions for the route via an AR display of the AR viewer that includes an AR indication related to the POI.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining, via one or more processors of an AR device, route information for a route to be traversed by a pedestrian wearing an AR viewer paired with the AR device, wherein the route information is obtained from a navigation application executing on the AR device,” this limitation recites mere data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining, from an image sensor coupled to the AR viewer, a set of image data of an environment included within the field of view of the AR viewer,” this limitation recites data gathering and data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. Regarding the limitation “in response to detecting the environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI, causing, via the one or more processors, the navigation application executing on the AR device to present navigational instructions for the route via an AR display of the AR viewer that includes an AR indication related to the POI,” this limitation recites data transmission and display that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The independent claims also recite the additional element of a processor which is a generic computing component merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity and generic computing components.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), and Long II, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0282978 A1 and Mayor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092555 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2, 5, 12, and 15, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by specifying the specific lighting conditions and determining the radiant intensity, which can be performed mentally by a human.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Long II, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0282978 A1 and Mayor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092555 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 13, and 16, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by reciting the mental step of determining a portion of a route with low lighting. The claims also recite the abstract idea of determining a route based on the lighting or radiant intensity, which can be performed mentally by a human.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Long II, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0282978 A1, Mayor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092555 A1, and Chantz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0131807 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4, 8, 14, and 18, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite the additional limitation of displaying information which is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claims also recite the additional element of a personal electronic device which is a generic computing component merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Long II, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0282978 A1, Mayor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092555 A1, and Woo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0397412 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite a navigation application that includes data transmission and display, which is considered insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Long II, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0282978 A1 and Mayor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092555 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite the further abstract idea of identifying a point of interest along a route, which can be determined mentally by a human. The claims also recite data transmission and display that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Long II, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0282978 A1 and Mayor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092555 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. This claim recites the additional elements of data storage and display that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Long II, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0282978 A1 and Mayor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092555 A1.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long II, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0282978 A1 (hereinafter Long), in view of Mayor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092555 A1 (hereinafter Mayor).
Regarding claim 1, Long discloses a computer-implemented method for Augmented Reality (AR) assisted pedestrian guidance (see at least Long Fig. 1, Fig. 2), the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, via one or more processors of an AR device, route information for a route to be traversed by a pedestrian wearing an AR viewer paired with the AR device (see at least Long [0034]: “The renderer module 128 then displays transformed data on the display device 116. In some embodiments, the display device 160 may comprise an augmented reality (AR) display worn over a user' eye or eyes that superimposes a visualization of the route in the user's field of view.”; [0027]: “In one embodiment, the display device 116 may be part of an augmented reality optic worn as glasses or as a monocle. In another embodiment the display device 116 may be part of a smartphone running an augmented reality system application.”),
wherein the route information is obtained from a navigation application executing on the AR device (see at least Long [0034]-[0035]: “This causes data associated with the estimated route 140 to be sent to the camera transform 126, which projectively [sic] transforms the data from the estimated sparse map 142 in the camera orientation to the egocentric perspective of the user as seen through the display device 116, resulting in a mapping from the camera perspective of the route to what the user sees in the display device 116…In embodiments, the estimated route 140 and the estimated map 142 may be both stored on the portable device. In embodiments, the routes may be transmitted to the cloud over wireless networks (e.g., using 4G/5G, Wi-Fi, or other technologies) by the wireless communication module 112 for storage, retrieval and distribution. As such the system 100 allows users to navigate back to the start, log routes, and share the routes with others.”);
determining, via the one or more processors, a field of view of the AR viewer (see at least Long [0034]: “In some embodiments, the display device 160 may comprise an augmented reality (AR) display worn over a user' eye or eyes that superimposes a visualization of the route in the user's field of view.”);
obtaining, from an image sensor coupled to the AR viewer, a set of image data of an environment included within the field of view of the AR viewer (see at least Long [0029]: “At a high level, the route tracker module 122 receives a stream of image frames from the camera 102 and motion data from the IMU 104.”; [0026]: “The route monitoring system 100 may be implemented as a portable or wearable device comprising a camera 102”);
identifying, via the one or more processors, a point of interest (POI) related to the route within the field of view of the AR viewer, wherein the POI is a non-virtual object or location (see at least Long [0034]: “In some embodiments, the display device 160 may comprise an augmented reality (AR) display worn over a user' eye or eyes that superimposes a visualization of the route in the user's field of view. These visualizations and navigation cues are representative of the route the user took earlier from the origin to their current position. The user may then follow this displayed route or breadcrumbs back to the origin where they initiated the current trip. For example, a firefighter (or other human first responder, military personnel, or the like) can use the system's route indications to return to the entrance of a building, being assisted through unknown rooms and hallways, possibly in low visibility, e.g., low light and/or smoke, conditions.”);
detecting, via the one or more processors, environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI (see at least Long [0034]: “For example, a firefighter (or other human first responder, military personnel, or the like) can use the system's route indications to return to the entrance of a building, being assisted through unknown rooms and hallways, possibly in low visibility, e.g., low light and/or smoke, conditions.”)
Long fails to expressly disclose causing the navigation application executing on the AR device to present navigational instructions for the route via an AR display of the AR viewer that includes an AR indication related to the POI in response to detecting the environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI. However, Mayor teaches
and in response to detecting the environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI, causing, via the one or more processors, the navigation application executing on the AR device to present navigational instructions for the route via an AR display of the AR viewer that includes an AR indication related to the POI (see at least Mayor [0052]: “In addition to labeling the physical objects shown in the interface, the map/navigation application 210 may provide map- or navigation-related functionality with additional components, including displaying the user's current location, the destination location and anticipated time of arrival, turn-by-turn navigation instructions, etc…Additionally, the AR system 220 also may select contrasting colors to be used for labeling objects and for other user interface components to be overlaid within the AR-based pedestrian navigation user interface. For example, street and building labels, arrows, and directional instructions may be rendered in a light color during nighttime use of the pedestrian navigation system, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Long with Mayor with reasonable expectation of success. Mayor is directed towards the related field of a mobile device navigation system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Long with Mayor to improve navigation accuracy and reduce user confusion (see at least Mayor [0003]-[0004]: “However, when mobile devices support location mapping and navigation capabilities, these capabilities may be highly susceptible to any errors in the location or sensor data detected at the device. For example, even relatively small errors within the device location data, device orientation data, or device movement data, generated by the mobile device, may result in significant mapping and navigational errors, as well as user confusion and disorientation…Similar techniques may be used to determine updated location data for the mobile device, to detect errors within the data provided by the mobile device's location/positioning systems, and to reconfigure or recalibrate the device's location/position systems as needed.”).
Regarding claim 2, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as explained above. Long further teaches
wherein the environmental lighting conditions proximate the POI indicate one or more of low lighting, no lighting, or an obstruction (see at least Long [0034]: “For example, a firefighter (or other human first responder, military personnel, or the like) can use the system's route indications to return to the entrance of a building, being assisted through unknown rooms and hallways, possibly in low visibility, e.g., low light and/or smoke, conditions.”).
Regarding claim 4, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as explained above. Mayor further teaches wherein providing the navigational instructions for the route includes:
configuring, via the one or more processors, the AR display to include an AR indication indicating adjustment of the navigational instructions for the route in view of the environmental lighting conditions (see at least Mayor [0052]: “In addition to labeling the physical objects shown in the interface, the map/navigation application 210 may provide map- or navigation-related functionality with additional components, including displaying the user's current location, the destination location and anticipated time of arrival, turn-by-turn navigation instructions, etc.…Additionally, the AR system 220 also may select contrasting colors to be used for labeling objects and for other user interface components to be overlaid within the AR-based pedestrian navigation user interface. For example, street and building labels, arrows, and directional instructions may be rendered in a light color during nighttime use of the pedestrian navigation system, etc.”).
Regarding claim 5, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as explained above. Long further teaches wherein detecting the environmental lighting conditions includes:
analyzing, via the one or more processors, a radiant intensity associated with the set of image data (see at least Long [0034]: “For example, a firefighter (or other human first responder, military personnel, or the like) can use the system's route indications to return to the entrance of a building, being assisted through unknown rooms and hallways, possibly in low visibility, e.g., low light and/or smoke, conditions.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a radiant intensity includes low light conditions).
Regarding claim 7, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as explained above. Mayor further teaches wherein:
at least one of a personal electronic device or an on-board system of a vehicle is executing a navigation application configured to assist the pedestrian for in-vehicle navigation via the vehicle (see at least Mayor [0018]: “Instead, a vehicle-based GPS navigation system, or a smartphone executing a “vehicle mode” of a mobile navigation application, may assume that the orientation of the display should correspond to the direction of travel of the vehicle. Therefore, if a smartphone executing a “vehicle mode” of a mobile navigation application is turned around while the vehicle is moving forward, the user interface need not be rotated to reflect the change in orientation of the device.”).
Regarding claim 9, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as explained above. Mayor teaches the method further comprising:
identifying, via the one or more processors, a point of interest associated with a navigational instruction along the route; and presenting, via the one or more processors, an indication of the navigational instruction proximate to a location of the POI via the AR display (see at least Mayor [0052]: “In addition to labeling the physical objects shown in the interface, the map/navigation application 210 may provide map- or navigation-related functionality with additional components, including displaying the user's current location, the destination location and anticipated time of arrival, turn-by-turn navigation instructions, etc. In some embodiments, the mobile application 210 and/or the AR system 220 may determine the size and placement of the graphical user interface components, based on the representations of the physical objects within the user interface. For example, directional instruction windows, arrows, and the like, may be positioned on the screen and sized appropriately so as not to obscure street signs, traffic signals, oncoming moving objects, etc.”).
Regarding claim 10, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as explained above. Mayor further teaches wherein presenting the AR display comprises:
accessing, via the one or more processors, a POI database to obtain content related to the POI (see at least Mayor [0025]: “Map data store 240, which may be implemented within a map server 120 separate from the mobile device 110, includes a database of map tiles. Map tiles contain sets of object identifiers, properties, and geographic coordinates that represent physical objects (e.g., buildings, streets, natural landmarks, etc.) within a particular region. The AR system 220 may request the appropriate map tiles based from the map data store 240 based on the current position of the mobile device 110 when the map/navigation application 210 is in use.”);
and presenting, via the one or more processors, an indication of the obtained content via the AR display (see at least Mayor [0064]: “As part of providing user interfaces 500-700, the map application module 804 may be configured to retrieve map tiles and/or navigation data (e.g., from data store 832), and to access an augmented reality module (e.g., AR Kit) for presenting an augmented reality overlay incorporating the map and/or navigation data within the user interfaces 500-700.”).
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a system that performs the computer-implemented method of claim 1. The combination of Long in view of Mayor also teaches a system for performing the method of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Specifically, Long teaches an AR device (Long [0027]), processor (Long [0027]), and non-transitory memory storing processor-executable instructions (Long [0057]) that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 2 as explained above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 4 as explained above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 5 as explained above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 7 as explained above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 9 as explained above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a medium that performs the computer-implemented method of claim 1. The combination of Long in view of Mayor also teaches a medium for performing the method of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Specifically, Long teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions (Long [0057]), processor (Long [0027]), and AR device (Long [0027]) that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 3, 6, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Mayor, and further in view of Chantz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0131807 A1 (hereinafter Chantz).
Regarding claim 3, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 2 as explained above. Long in view of Mayor fail to expressly disclose identifying an alternate pathway associated with higher lighting conditions and generating an alternate route that traverses the alternate pathway. However, Chantz teaches
analyzing, via the one or more processors, the set of image data to identify that a portion of the route is associated with low lighting; analyzing, via the one or more processors, the set of image data to identify an alternate pathway associated with higher lighting conditions (see at least Chantz [0019]: “For example, if a user has set a preference for minimum ambient light conditions and, after generating the route, the measured amount of ambient light in an area changes (e.g. a light post in the area goes out resulting in a sensor detecting less ambient light), the free-form route generator 108 updates the free-form route to generate a new free-form route that conforms to the user's preference.”; Chantz [0016] teaches the sensors include cameras that provide image data);
and generating, via the one or more processors, an alternate route that traverses the alternate pathway (see at least Chantz [0019]: “For example, if a user has set a preference for minimum ambient light conditions and, after generating the route, the measured amount of ambient light in an area changes (e.g. a light post in the area goes out resulting in a sensor detecting less ambient light), the free-form route generator 108 updates the free-form route to generate a new free-form route that conforms to the user's preference.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Long in view of Mayor with Chantz with reasonable expectation of success. Chantz is directed towards the related field of free-form route generation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Long in view of Mayor with Chantz to provide a route aligned with user preferences (see at least Chantz [0001]-[0002]: “Conventional mapping systems rely on predefined roads, paths, etc. on maps in order to plan a route from a starting location to a destination location. Additionally, such systems are typically two-dimensional systems…One example of the computer-implemented method comprises receiving data from one or more sensors distributed throughout a geographic area; receiving one or more user preferences related to the geographic area; and generating one or more free-form routes from a first location to a second location based on analysis of the received data with respect to the one or more user preferences such that each of the one or more free-form routes complies with the one or more user preferences.”).
Regarding claim 6, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 5 as explained above. Long in view of Mayor fail to expressly disclose recalculating the route based upon analyzing the radiant intensity. However, Chantz teaches wherein providing the navigational instructions for the route includes:
recalculating the route based upon analyzing the radiant intensity (see at least Chantz [0019]: “For example, if a user has set a preference for minimum ambient light conditions and, after generating the route, the measured amount of ambient light in an area changes (e.g. a light post in the area goes out resulting in a sensor detecting less ambient light), the free-form route generator 108 updates the free-form route to generate a new free-form route that conforms to the user's preference.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation recalculating the route based upon the radiant intensity includes a new route based on the light conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Long in view of Mayor with Chantz with reasonable expectation of success. Chantz is directed towards the related field of free-form route generation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Long in view of Mayor with Chantz to provide a route aligned with user preferences (see at least Chantz [0001]-[0002]: “Conventional mapping systems rely on predefined roads, paths, etc. on maps in order to plan a route from a starting location to a destination location. Additionally, such systems are typically two-dimensional systems…One example of the computer-implemented method comprises receiving data from one or more sensors distributed throughout a geographic area; receiving one or more user preferences related to the geographic area; and generating one or more free-form routes from a first location to a second location based on analysis of the received data with respect to the one or more user preferences such that each of the one or more free-form routes complies with the one or more user preferences.”).
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 3 as explained above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 6 as explained above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 6.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Mayor, and further in view of Woo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0397412 A1 (hereinafter Woo).
Regarding claim 8, Long in view of Mayor teach all elements of the computer-implemented method according to claim 7 as explained above. Long further teaches wherein:
the AR device is the personal electronic device (see at least Long [0027]: “In another embodiment the display device 116 may be part of a smartphone running an augmented reality system application.”);
Long in view of Mayor fail to expressly disclose providing the navigational instructions comprises switching, via the one or more processors, an output device from a display of the personal electronic device to the AR viewer. However, Woo teaches
and providing the navigational instructions comprises switching, via the one or more processors, an output device from a display of the personal electronic device to the AR viewer (see at least Woo [0043]-[0044]: “When the user carrying the mobile device approaches within the predetermined distance (time) from the destination, it is determined whether the environment for providing the AR-based guidance services is built at the corresponding location (i.e., around the destination) (218). If the environment for providing the AR-based guidance services is built around the destination (YES in 218), the mobile device switches to the AR service mode (220). To this end, in the mobile device, the existing commercial navigation service mode activated on the foreground is deactivated (222), and the AR service mode running in the background is activated on the foreground (224).”; [0045]: “In 218 of FIG. 2, if the environment for providing an AR-based guidance services is not built around the destination (No in 218), the mobile device maintains the commercial navigation services running in the foreground as it is (226).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Long in view of Mayor with Woo with reasonable expectation of success. Woo is directed towards the related field of point of interest guidance through a mobile device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Long in view of Mayor with Woo to enable seamless transition between navigation services (see at least Woo [0006]: “An aspect of the disclosure is to perform a route guidance and POI guidance using a POI database for a commercial navigation and a POI database for AR, and is to enable seamless transition between commercial navigation services and AR services by removing the dependency of data through data exchange between the POI database for commercial navigation and the POI database for AR.”).
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 8 as explained above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coney, U.S. Patent No. 11844741 B2, directed towards a travel assistance system that transmits a navigation path based on difficulty.
Pijlman, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0197372 A1, directed towards determining lighting preferences in an augmented reality environment.
Beaurepaire, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0389152 A1, directed towards projecting augmented reality navigation cues on user-selected surfaces.
Gotoh, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0026142 A1, directed towards determining a route based on light source and illuminance information.
Haciomeroglu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0147418 A1, directed towards an augmented reality mask to reduce cognitive load of the wearer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights