DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menozzi et al. (US 2016/0055671).
Regarding claim 1:
Menozzi discloses:
Claim 1
Menozzi
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
Paragraph 27: "processing module"
obtain, at a head-wearable device, sensor data about a localized physical area;
Paragraph 89: "camera image"
determine, based on the sensor data, that a landmark-based-localization condition is satisfied
Paragraph 89: "Find pixel coordinates of black-Sun centroid"
in accordance with determining that the landmark-based-localization condition is satisfied, obtain data about a physically-identifiable feature of a physical landmark detectable from the localized physical area; and
Paragraphs 90-91
based on (i) the data about the physically-identifiable feature of the physical landmark, and (ii) other data indicating a time when the data about the physically-identifiable feature of the physical landmark was obtained, determine an orientation and/or and a position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area.
Paragraph 93; Paragraph 5: "position and orientation (pose) of a display"
Regarding claim 8:
Menozzi discloses:
wherein the physical landmark is a celestial body and/or a natural physical effect caused by the celestial body (paragraph 88: it's the Sun).
Regarding claims 9 and 15:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 10-11, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menozzi in view of Nagata et al. (US 2020/0005635)
Regarding claim 2:
Menozzi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as discussed above.
Menozzi does not disclose:
“the instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to: after determining the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area:
obtain other sensor data about a different localized physical area;
“in accordance with determining that the landmark-based-localization condition is still satisfied, obtain additional data about a different physically-identifiable feature of another physical landmark detectable from the different localized physical area; and
“based on the additional data, update the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the different localized physical area.”
Nagata discloses:
the instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to: after determining the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area:
obtain other sensor data about a different localized physical area (paragraph 58);
in accordance with determining that the landmark-based-localization condition is still satisfied, obtain additional data about a different physically-identifiable feature of another physical landmark detectable from the different localized physical area (paragraph 58); and
based on the additional data, update the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the different localized physical area (paragraph 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Menozzi the elements taught by Nagata.
The rationale is as follows:
Menozzi and Nagata are directed to the same field of art.
Nagata discloses additional instructions that can improve the orientation and/or positioning. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 3:
Menozzi in view of Nagata discloses:
the instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to:
in accordance with determining the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area:
compare the orientation and/or the position determined using the physically-identifiable feature with another localization determination determined without using the physically-identifiable feature (paragraph 82: "position information…based on the received GPS signals"); and
while a difference between the orientation and/or the position determined using the physically-identifiable feature and the other localization determination exceed a threshold value (Nagata compares the GPS accuracy to a threshold in paragraph 84; then calculates one for the landmark in paragraph 86; it compares them in paragraph 87):
persistently determine new respective orientations and/or positions based on the physically-identifiable feature (Nagata paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 7:
Menozzi in view of Nagata discloses:
wherein the landmark-based-localization condition is determined based on one or more of: a determination that the head-wearable device is attempting to navigate within an area having a low GPS differentiability (Nagata paragraphs 84-85; note that because it says “and/or” below this is sufficient);
a determination that the head-wearable device is performing an interaction with artificial-reality content presented by the head-wearable device that requires a threshold level of localization precision;
a determination that one or more sensors of the head-wearable device are experiencing inaccuracy that exceeds a threshold error value; and/or
a determination, based on observational data from one or more sensors of the head-wearable device, that the physically-identifiable feature of the physical landmark satisfies a threshold localization value.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 16-17:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menozzi in view of Sommer et al. (US 2020/0264006)
Regarding claim 4:
Menozzi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as discussed above.
Menozzi does not disclose:
“the instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to:
“in accordance with determining the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area, activate one or more components of a speaker of the head-wearable device to cause a directional audio feedback event to be provided to the head-wearable device.”
Sommer discloses:
in accordance with determining the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area, activate one or more components of a speaker of the head-wearable device to cause a directional audio feedback event to be provided to the head-wearable device (paragraph 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Menozzi the elements taught by Sommer.
The rationale is as follows:
Menozzi and Sommer are directed to the same field of art.
Sommer discloses a method of guiding a user on a path, which is certainly applicable to the navigation taught by Menozzi. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claims 12 and 18:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menozzi, and further in view of Iyer et al. (US 2020/0126252)
Regarding claim 5:
Menozzi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as discussed above.
Menozzi does not disclose:
“the instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to:
“in accordance with determining the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area, present one or more artificial-reality content objects based on the orientation and/or the position.”
Iyer discloses:
the instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with determining the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area, present one or more artificial-reality content objects based on the orientation and/or the position (Iyer paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Menozzi the elements taught by Iyer.
The rationale is as follows:
Menozzi and Iyer are directed to the same field of art.
Iyer discloses an application that could be of use to the user and improve the functionality of the device. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6:
Menozzi, etc., discloses:
the instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to:
in accordance with determining the orientation and/or the position of the head-wearable device within the localized physical area, re-calibrate one or more sensors of the head-wearable device (Iyer paragraph 77).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 19-20:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Warnaar et al. (US 2020/0363207); Rupnik et al. (US 2020/0159224); Ramsey et al. (US 2024/0035848).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights