DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meisenholder et al. (US 2022/0375172 A1, hereinafter referred as “Meisenholder”).
Regarding claim 1, Meisenholder discloses a method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
processing contextual data that is generated based on one or more sensors that are integral to computerized glasses that are being worn by a user who is located in an environment (abstract and ¶0076 discloses a camera of the electronic eyewear device to capture a scan image and processing the scan image to extract contextual signals);
generating, based on processing the contextual data, suggestion data that characterizes one or more operations that can be initialized via user interaction with the computerized glasses (abstract and ¶0075 discloses user of the electronic eyewear device 100 may scan a scene to identify objects and to select augmented reality features from an augmented reality feature storage for display on the real-world image viewed through the electronic eyewear device 100);
determining that the user has provided, via an interface of the computerized glasses, an invocation input while the user is wearing the computerized glasses and is located in the environment (abstract and ¶0022 discloses capture voice commands at microphones located around the user's mouth on the electronic eyewear device); and
causing, based on the suggestion data and in response to determining that the user has provided the invocation input, a set of one or more selectable suggestions to be rendered at a display interface of the computerized glasses (abstract and ¶0092 discloses the extracted contextual signals and the identified keywords are then used to select at least one augmented reality feature that matches the extracted contextual signals and the identified keywords, and the selected augmented reality feature is presented to the display for user selection),
wherein a user selection of a particular selectable suggestion of the set of the one or more selectable suggestions causes performance of at least one of the one or more operations (¶0085 discloses the user may view any lens in the scan results by selecting it in the lens carousel or other user interface for activation).
Regarding claim 2, Meisenholder discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, subsequent to the user providing the invocation input (¶0080 discloses a wake word may be used to activate the scan feature), that the user has provided an additional input via the computerized glasses, wherein the additional input includes a spoken utterance that embodies a portion of a command phrase (¶0085 discloses if the user is at the beach and said, ‘Show me some cool space lenses,’ the scan results would reflect what the user said and show scan results relating to space (e.g., aliens, spaceships, etc.).); and causing, based on the portion of the command phrase, a separate set of one or more selectable suggestions to be rendered at the display interface of the computerized glasses (¶0085 discloses if the user is at the beach and said, ‘Show me some cool space lenses,’ the scan results would reflect what the user said and show scan results relating to space (e.g., aliens, spaceships, etc.)).
Regarding claim 3, Meisenholder discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the contextual data further characterizes a particular time that the user is wearing the computerized glasses in the environment, and wherein generating the suggestion data is further based on the particular time (¶0087 discloses if the visual scan does not result in any high confidence signals or there are no corresponding compatible augmented reality features (e.g., lenses), then results may be provided for more universal contextual augmented reality features (e.g., lenses) such as Time of Day, Lighting, Indoor/Outdoor, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Meisenholder discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, subsequent to the user providing the invocation input, that the user has adjusted a direction of gaze while wearing the computerized glasses (¶0076 discloses the contextual signal may further include the user's gaze direction and linear or rotational movement of the user's head to track the scene); and causing, based on the user adjusting the direction of gaze, a separate set of one or more selectable suggestions to be rendered at the display interface of the computerized glasses (¶0021 discloses the captured image may be processed to match the area of a displayed animation so that the user can guide the scan to focus on a certain object in the scene. In some examples, the focus may be driven by other means such as eye-tracking).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisenholder in view of Fedosov et al. (US 20170213393 A1, hereinafter referred as “Fedosov”).
Regarding claim 5, Meisenholder doesn’t disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the particular selectable suggestion is associated with a first location in the environment.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fedosov discloses wherein the particular selectable suggestion is associated with a first location in the environment (¶0041 and ¶0042 discloses the computer-generated virtual object is related to the at least one point of interest. For example, the computer-generated virtual object may be an annotation, a name and/or a description of the at least one point of interest).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meisonholder for the purpose of representing points of interest (POIs) in a view of a real environment is particularly useful and popular in location-based (mobile) augmented reality applications, such as tour guidance for exploring the urban environment (¶0004).
Regarding claim 6, Meisenholder doesn’t disclose method of claim 5, wherein causing the set of one or more selectable suggestions to be rendered at the display interface of the computerized glasses includes: causing the particular selectable suggestion to be rendered with an indication that the particular selectable suggestion is associated with the first location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fedosov discloses wherein causing the set of one or more selectable suggestions to be rendered at the display interface of the computerized glasses (Fig. 2 and ¶0103 discloses the annotations are displayed lower than the respective displayed computer-generated indicator for the POIs on the screen) includes: causing the particular selectable suggestion to be rendered with an indication that the particular selectable suggestion is associated with the first location (Fig. 2 and ¶0116 discloses a computer-generated indicator (here: circle) 2004 is placed at the respective image position to indicate a location of a POI in the image. The computer-generated virtual object (here: annotation) 2005 showing the POI name is displayed below and connected with line 2006 to the circle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meisonholder for the purpose of representing points of interest (POIs) in a view of a real environment is particularly useful and popular in location-based (mobile) augmented reality applications, such as tour guidance for exploring the urban environment (¶0004).
Regarding claim 7, Meisenholder doesn’t disclose method of claim 6, wherein causing the particular selectable suggestion to be rendered with the indication that the particular selectable suggestion is associated with the first location includes: causing the particular selectable suggestion to be rendered at a location of the display interface that appears more proximate to the first location than the second location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fedosov discloses wherein causing the particular selectable suggestion to be rendered with the indication that the particular selectable suggestion is associated with the first location includes: causing the particular selectable suggestion to be rendered at a location of the display interface that appears more proximate to the first location than the second location (Figs. 7a-7b and ¶0104 discloses when there are more than one annotation to be displayed, the annotations may each be placed on the bottom of the screen, or placed in a stack mode, i.e. one annotation being placed on the top of another annotation (see FIGS. 7a and 7b). The screen positions of the annotations are further determined according to the screen positions of the indicators of the corresponding POIs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meisonholder for the purpose of avoiding ambiguity among multiple POIs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYANK J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 - 6:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ghebretinsae, Temesghen can be reached on (571) 272-3017. 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.
/PRIYANK J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights