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) 1-4, 6-15, 17-23 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goergen et al (PGPUB 2020/0225715 A1).
As to claim 1, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, a method, comprising:
identifying whether a device (wearable visualization device 10) is being used by a user (user)(¶ 51);
in response to identifying the device is being used by the user (i.e. enable head tracking, ¶ 54), identifying a change in at least one of an orientation (orientation) or a movement of the device (acceleration)(¶ 29, 34: i.e. determine orientation / acceleration of wearable visualization device 12); and
determining a deceleration (deceleration) that satisfies a criterion (deceleration threshold) based on the change in at least one of the orientation or the movement of the device (¶ 26, 33: using negative acceleration and deceleration threshold, determine sudden stop due to impact)(¶ 33).
As to claim 2, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, determining a potential for an impact (¶ 33: i.e. impact based on deceleration threshold); and
activating a sensor (sensor 40) in response to the potential for the impact (¶ 34: i.e. additionally detect other parameters, ¶ 37, 51: i.e. upon detecting an impact, carry out maintenance operation and initiate by detecting yes/no answer from the user).
As to claim 3, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein the deceleration that satisfies the criterion indicates an impact (¶ 33, 34: i.e. deceleration threshold can be used to determine severity of the drop/impact).
As to claim 4, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein the criterion is a profile (i.e. operator or maintenance technician) associated with at least one of the orientation or the movement (¶ 53: i.e. moving the wearable visualization device 12 in certain ways).
As to claim 6, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein the criterion is a first criterion, the method further comprising:
determining an acceleration that satisfies a second criterion (second acceleration threshold)(¶ 34); and
responsive to determining the acceleration, determining the deceleration satisfies
the first criterion based on the change in at least one of the orientation or the movement of the device (¶ 34: i.e. severity is determined based on first and second acceleration threshold or compare one or more thresholds).
As to claim 7, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein identifying whether the device is being used by the user includes identifying a type of activity in which the user is engaged (¶ 40: i.e. riding vehicle or ¶ 53: i.e. maintaining and diagnosing the problem).
As to claim 8, Goergen (Figs. 4) teaches, wherein the type of activity includes at least one of a physical activity, a gaming activity, or a driving activity (Fig. 4: i.e. ride vehicle is physical and gaming activity).
As to claim 9, Georgen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein the device is a first device (i.e. one wearable visualization device of one user), and determining the deceleration that satisfies the criterion is based on at least one of the change in at least one of the orientation or the movement of the first device (¶ 33) or a change (i.e. change in acceleration) in at least one of an orientation or movement of a second device (i.e. wearable visualization device 12 of another user)(¶ 31, 42: i.e. detection system 50 can detect and monitor more than one wearable visualization devices).
As to claim 10, Georgen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, activating a visual sensor (camera 64) in response to detecting the change (¶ 40: i.e. determine whether the device 12 is functioning properly after the event of impact); and
determining the deceleration based on at least one of the change (¶ 33) or
the movement (deceleration) and based on data received from the visual sensor (camera 64, ¶ 40).
As to claim 11, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein identifying whether the device is being used by the user includes identifying a vehicular use (i.e. riding vehicle, Fig. 5) or a non-vehicular use (i.e. diagnosing problem)(¶ 53).
As to claim 12, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein the device is a head-wearable device (Fig. 12, head mounted display in ¶ 18) and identifying whether the device is being used includes detecting that the head-wearable device is being worn by the user (¶ 54: head tracking).
As to claim 13, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein detecting that the head-wearable device is being worn by the user is based on at least one of a proximity sensor or an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (¶ 54: i.e. based on IMU).
As to claim 14, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, determining whether the user is in a moving vehicle (ride vehicle 74)(¶ 44),
wherein determining the deceleration is further based on whether the user is in the moving vehicle (¶ 24, 33: i.e. deceleration threshold while the user is riding the vehicle).
As to claim 15, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein determining whether the user is in the moving vehicle is based on at least one of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor (IMU ¶ 54), an audio sensor, or a visual sensor (camera 64, ¶ 40).
As to claim 17, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, a head-wearable device (wearable visualization device 10) comprising:
a sensor (sensor, IMU 40)(¶ 26);
at least a processor (processor 54, Fig. 3); and
a memory storing (memory 56) instructions (software, ¶ 18) that, when executed by the processor, cause the head-wearable device to perform operations including:
identifying use of the head-wearable device by a user (user) based on data (inertial measurement) received from the sensor (¶ 19);
identifying a change in at least one of an orientation (orientation) or a movement (acceleration/deceleration) of the head-wearable device within a time period (i.e. duration of a ride, ¶ 24, 26); and
determining a deceleration (deceleration) that satisfies a criterion (deceleration threshold) based on the use and based on the change in at least one of the orientation or the movement of the head-wearable device (¶ 26, 33: using negative acceleration and deceleration threshold, determine sudden stop due to impact)(¶ 33).
As to claim 18, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein the sensor is a first sensor (IMU 40), the deceleration indicates an impact (i.e. detecting an impact based on deceleration threshold) and the instructions further cause the head-wearable device to perform operations including:
determining a potential for the impact and activating a second sensor in response to the potential for the impact (¶ 34: i.e. additionally detect other parameters, ¶ 37, 51: i.e. upon detecting an impact, carry out maintenance operation and initiate by detecting yes/no answer from the user).
As to claim 19, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches,
wherein the instructions further cause the head-wearable device to perform operations including:
activating a visual sensor (camera 64) in response to detecting the change (¶ 40); and
determining the deceleration based on the use and based on at least one of the
change and based on data received from the visual sensor (¶ 40: i.e. determine whether the device 12 is functioning properly after the event of impact).
As to claim 20, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, a microcontroller (processor),
wherein the data from the sensor is provided to the microcontroller for processing to
conserve power (block power)(¶ 40).
As to claim 21, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable medium (memory 56) storing instructions (software, ¶ 18) that, when
executed by a processor (processor 54, Fig. 3) on a computing device (wearable visualization device 10), causes the computing device to perform operations comprising:
identifying a change in at least one of an orientation (orientation) or a movement (acceleration/ deceleration) of the computing device (¶ 24, 26);
determining a potential for an impact (i.e. impact / fall) based on the change in at least one of the orientation or the movement of the computing device (¶ 26, 33: i.e. using negative acceleration and deceleration threshold, determine sudden stop due to an impact);
activating a sensor (camera 64) in response to the potential for the impact (¶ 40); and
determining the impact based on the change in at least one of the orientation or the movement of the computing device or data received from the sensor (¶ 40: i.e. determine whether the device 12 is functioning properly after the event of impact).
AAs to claim 22, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches, wherein the sensor is a
visual sensor (camera 64)(¶ 40).
As to claim 23, Goergen (Figs. 1 , 5) teaches, wherein the instructions when executed by the processor on the computing device, further cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:
determining whether a user of the computing device is in a moving vehicle (ride vehicle, Fig. 4) , wherein determining the impact is further based on whether the user is in the moving vehicle (¶ 36: i.e. determine improper handling during ride).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen in view of Johnson et al (PGPUB 2021/0124412 A1).
As to claim 5, Goergen teaches the method of claim 1 but does not specifically teach the profile.
Johnson (Fig. 1) teaches, wherein the deceleration is included in the profile
associated with at least one of the orientation or the movement (¶ 43: user profile and used by the collision detector 120).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Johnson’s user profile and device structure into Goergen’s display device, so as to improve personalized experience based on the user (¶ 64).
As to claim 16, Goergen (Figs. 1, 5) teaches. wherein determining the deceleration is further based on at least one of a light sensor (camera 64, ¶ 40).
Goergen does not specifically teach an audio sensor.
Johnson (Fig. 1) teaches, an audio sensor (microphone)(¶ 153).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Johnson’s user profile and device structure into Goergen’s display device, so as to improve personalized experience based on the user (¶ 64).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGHYUK PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7359. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00AM - 6:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on ((571) 272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/SANGHYUK PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights