Office Action 4: Non-Final Rejection (2024-02-01)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
1\. (currently amended) A device, comprising:
at least one processor;
a camera accessible to the at least one processor; and
storage accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor to:
responsive to a trigger, receive input from the camera and, based on the input, recognize one or more aspects related to a geographic location, wherein the one or more aspects that are recognized comprise one or more of: a registered object associated with the geographic location, geometry of the geographic location ; \[\[and\]\] based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, permit use of the device;
based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, present a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first aspect of the geographic location that has been recognized and based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, deny use of the device and take one or more actions.

2-11. (canceled).310

12\. (currently amended) A method, comprising:
responsive to a trigger, receiving, at a device, input from a camera and, based on the input, using the device to recognize one or more elements related to a particular location ; \[\[and\]\] based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, permitting use of the device; and
based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first element of the particular location that has been recognized.

13-17. (canceled).1416

18\. (currently amended) An apparatus, comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium (CRSM) that is not a transitory signal, the computer readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by at least one processor to:
receive input from a camera;
based on the input, recognize one or more aspects related to a particular location, the one or more aspects comprising one or more of: geometry of \[\[a\]\]the particular location, \[\[and\]\] a registered object located at the particular location

  ; \[\[and\]\] based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the particular location , permit use of a \[\[the\]\] device; andbased on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, deny use of the device and take one or more actions.

19-23. (canceled).2022

24\. (currently amended) The apparatus of Claim 18,
 wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device.

25-27. (canceled).2626

28\. (previously presented)The device of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device.

29-34 (cancelled).3033

35\. (previously presented)The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device.

36-37. (canceled).

38\. (currently amended) The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
present a first graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the first GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more real-world objects to register for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of the device;
execute gesture recognition to identify the user as pointing with a finger at the one or more real-world objects to register the one or more real-world objects; and
subsequent to identification of the user as pointing with the finger at the one or more real- world objects to register the one or more real-world objects, present a second GUI on the display, the second GUI being different from the first GUI, the second GUI indicating that the one or more real- world objects have been registered.

39\. (currently amended) The method of Claim 12, comprising:

as part of \[\[the\]\]a registration process, presenting a first graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the first GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more real-world objects to register for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of the device;
executing gesture recognition to identify the user as pointing with a finger at the one or more real-world objects to register the one or more real-world objects; and
subsequent to identification of the user as pointing with the finger at the one or more real- world objects to register the one or more real-world objects, presenting a second GUI on the display, the second GUI being different from the first GUI, the second GUI indicating that the one or more real-world objects have been registered.

40\. (new) The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
present a firstgraphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the first GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more real-world objects to register for subsequent recognition by the at least one processor to permit use of the device;
identify the user as pointing with a finger at the one or more real-world objects to register the one or more real-world objects; and
subsequent to identification of the user as pointing with the finger at the one or more real- world objects to register the one or more real-world objects, present a second GUI on the display, the second GUI being different from the first GUI, the second GUI indicating that the one or more real- world objects have been registered.

41\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to turn in a circle for the device to map the geographic location and/or recognize individual objects to register for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of the device.

42\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the graphical object is presented to appear next to the registered object according to a user's field of view.

43\. (new) The device of Claim 42, wherein the graphical obj ect is presented to appear as located at a same depth as the registered obj ect relative to the device.

44\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the graphical object is a first graphical object, and wherein the instructions are executable to:
based on identification, using the input from the camera, of a real-world object that has not been matched to a registered object, present a second graphical object on the display, the second graphical object being different from the first graphical object.

45\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise shutting down the device.

46\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise placing the device in a sleep or hibernate mode.

47\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise locking out people from using the device for a threshold period of time.

48\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise visually and/or audibly prompting a user to move to a different location.

49\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
while recognizing one or more aspects related to the geographic location, leave a display of the device blank.

50\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
while recognizing one or more aspects related to the geographic location, leave a display of the device transmissive with no images or data being presented.

51\. (new) The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
prior to the trigger, receiving the input, and recognizing the one or more aspects, present a settings graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the settings GUI comprising an option that is selectable enable the device to, in the future, perform the recognition of the one or more aspects.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 18 October 2023:
Claims 1, 12, 18, 24 and 38-39 are amended.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, 19-23, 25-27, 29-34 and 36-37 are canceled.
Claims 40-51 are added.
Claims 1, 12, 18, 24, 28, 35 and 38-51 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 51, Lines 2-3, “the settings GUI comprising an option that is selectable enable the device to, in the future…” should read” the settings GUI comprising an option that is selectable to enable the device to, in the future…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 24 is 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 pre-AIA  the application regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 24, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the trigger”, as to what trigger the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite. The Examiner acknowledges that “the trigger” is most likely the same trigger referred to in independent claims 1 and 12, however, independent claim 18 is silent regarding any trigger.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, JR. et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0394012), hereinafter Wright, in view of Cudak et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2015/0358769), hereinafter Cudak, in further view of Van Os et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2013/0137462), hereinafter Os, in further view of Howarter et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2013/0237207), hereinafter Howarter.
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches A device (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…the AR or VR system may include a device for each user (e.g. a mobile device like a tablet or mobile phone, a head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device, desktop PC, or laptop)”, where “head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device” is being read as the device), comprising:
at least one processor (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…The user device may comprise a camera that allows the user to capture a stream of images from the user’s environment and a processing unit that analyzes images captured by the camera and determines relative position of the device within the environment (e.g., performs device tracking)”, where “processing unit” is being read as comprising at least one processor);
a camera accessible to the at least one processor (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…The user device may comprise a camera that allows the user to capture a stream of images from the user’s environment and a processing unit that analyzes images captured by the camera…”, where the camera is accessible to the at least one processor); and
storage accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor to (Wright, Paragraph [0026], see “…One example computing device in the form of a computer 120 may include a processing unit 202, memory 204, removable storage 212, and non-removable storage 214…the computing device may instead be a smartphone, a tablet, smartwatch, another wearable computing device type, or other computing device including the same, similar, fewer, or more elements than illustrated and described with regard to FIG. 2”) (Wright, Paragraph [0029], see “Computer-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium are executable by the processing unit 202 of the computer 120”, where “computer-readable medium” is being read as storage accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor):
responsive to a trigger, receive input from the camera (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 405, one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera”, where “one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera” is being read as receiving input from the camera and where the one or more images including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera responsive to a trigger, where the Examiner relied on BRI of how input is received from a camera, whether it’s a button being pressed or the camera focusing on an object before receiving input from the camera. It is safe to assume the camera is not just capturing images 24/7, and that there needs to be some sort of trigger that initiates the input received from the camera) and, based on the input, recognize one or more aspects related to a geographic location (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 410, the processor recognizes the object from the captured image(s)…”) (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data” is being read as recognizing one or more aspects related to a geographic location), wherein the one or more aspects that are recognized comprise one or more of: a registered object associated with the geographic location, geometry of the geographic location (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “identified object” is being read as a registered object and where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information…This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location)” is analogous to the registered object being associated with a geographic location) (Wright, Paragraph [0179], see “…the database may store environment maps and may be filtered or searched by the geolocation to retrieve an environment map of the particular geolocation. Once the environment map is retrieved, it is loaded the user device compares features of objects identified in an image captured by the camera of the user device with information from the environment map. When there is a match of objects in the image to information in the environment map, find the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment…”, where “the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment” is being read as the one or more aspects that are recognized comprising of geometry of the geographic location);
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, permit use of the device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “…Where the use of the electronic device has been restricted by preventing login attempts, the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location”, where “the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location” is analogous to permitting use of the device (i.e., through logging the user into the electronic device) based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, where the one or more aspects are defined by the users’ home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, disclosed of Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location. This allows for better security management by comparing a registered aspect of a respective geographic location with the input provided by the camera in order to deem that use of the device is permitted in the requested geographic location. This allows for the use of the device to only be permitted when in specific areas (e.g., at home, at the office, etc.). Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Os: based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, present a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first aspect of the geographic location that has been recognized (Os, Claim 3, see “…obtaining input to the graphical placemark; and presenting a graphical object displaying location information associated with the geographic location”, where “obtaining input to the graphical placemark” which is analogous to presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first aspect of the geographic location (location information associated with the geographic location) that has been recognized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first aspect of the geographic location that has been recognized, disclosed of Os.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first aspect of the geographic location that has been recognized. This allows for better security management by associating a graphical object with a first aspect of the geographic location in order to determine if the device is permitted to be used based on its location. Os is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first aspect of the geographic location that has been recognized (Os, Claim 3).
Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Howarter: based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, deny use of the device and take one or more actions (Howarter, Paragraph [0005], see “…The set of instructions may be executed by the processor to determine a geographic location of a vehicle, determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle, determine conditional paramteres of the mobile communication device, access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions, determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination”, where “access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions” is analogous to recognizing whether one or more aspects related to the geographic location have been preregistered and where “determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination” is analogous to denying use of the device (restricting) and taking one or more actions (configuring) based on the recognition of one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. Although Howarter does not specifically go into detail about the restriction and configuration happening based on failure to recognize, one of ordinary skill in the art would come to a conclusion that Howarters’ disclosure of restricting (or denying) use of a device based on geographic location can be construed to be of similar nature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, and techniques disclosed of Os, by implementing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, disclosed of Howarter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. This allows for better security management by utilizing a database of preregistered data corresponding to a geographic location in order to determine whether the device is permitted to be used in a specific geographic location. Howarter is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered (Howarter, Paragraph [0005]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os.
Regarding claim 12, Wright teaches A method, comprising:
responsive to a trigger, receiving, at a device, input from a camera (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 405, one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera”, where “one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera” is being read as receiving input from the camera and where the one or more images including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera responsive to a trigger, where the Examiner relied on BRI of how input is received from a camera, whether it’s a button being pressed or the camera focusing on an object before receiving input from the camera. It is safe to assume the camera is not just capturing images 24/7, and that there needs to be some sort of trigger that initiates the input received from the camera) and, based on the input, using the device to recognize one or more elements related to a particular location (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 410, the processor recognizes the object from the captured image(s)…”) (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data” is being read as recognizing one or more elements related to a particular location);
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, permitting use of the device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “…Where the use of the electronic device has been restricted by preventing login attempts, the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location”, where “the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location” is analogous to permitting use of the device (i.e., through logging the user into the electronic device) based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, where the one or more aspects are defined by the users’ home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, disclosed of Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location. This allows for better security management by comparing a registered element of a respective particular location with the input provided by the camera in order to deem that use of the device is permitted in the requested particular location. This allows for the use of the device to only be permitted when in specific areas (e.g., at home, at the office, etc.). Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more element related to the particular location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Os: based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first element of the particular location that has been recognized (Os, Claim 3, see “…obtaining input to the graphical placemark; and presenting a graphical object displaying location information associated with the geographic location”, where “obtaining input to the graphical placemark” which is analogous to presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first element of the particular location (location information associated with the particular location) that has been recognized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first element of the particular location that has been recognized, disclosed of Os.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first element of the particular location that has been recognized. This allows for better security management by associating a graphical object with a first element of the particular location in order to determine if the device is permitted to be used based on its location. Os is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of presenting a graphical object on a display, the graphical object indicating a first aspect of the geographic location that has been recognized (Os, Claim 3).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Howarter.
Regarding claim 18, Wright teaches An apparatus (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…the AR or VR system may include a device for each user (e.g. a mobile device like a tablet or mobile phone, a head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device, desktop PC, or laptop)”, where “head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device” is being read as the device), comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium (CRSM) that is not a transitory signal, the computer readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by at least one processor to (Wright, Paragraph [0026], see “…One example computing device in the form of a computer 120 may include a processing unit 202, memory 204, removable storage 212, and non-removable storage 214…the computing device may instead be a smartphone, a tablet, smartwatch, another wearable computing device type, or other computing device including the same, similar, fewer, or more elements than illustrated and described with regard to FIG. 2”) (Wright, Paragraph [0029], see “Computer-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium are executable by the processing unit 202 of the computer 120”, where “computer-readable medium” is being read as storage accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor):
receive input from a camera (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 405, one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera”, where “one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera” is being read as receiving input from the camera);
based on the input, recognize one or more aspects related to a particular location (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 410, the processor recognizes the object from the captured image(s)…”) (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data” is being read as recognizing one or more aspects related to a geographic location), the one or more aspects comprising one or more of: geometry of the particular location, a registered object located at the particular location (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “identified object” is being read as a registered object and where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information…This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location)” is analogous to the registered object being associated with a geographic location) (Wright, Paragraph [0179], see “…the database may store environment maps and may be filtered or searched by the geolocation to retrieve an environment map of the particular geolocation. Once the environment map is retrieved, it is loaded the user device compares features of objects identified in an image captured by the camera of the user device with information from the environment map. When there is a match of objects in the image to information in the environment map, find the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment…”, where “the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment” is being read as the one or more aspects that are recognized comprising of geometry of the geographic location);
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the particular location, permit use of a device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “…Where the use of the electronic device has been restricted by preventing login attempts, the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location”, where “the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location” is analogous to permitting use of the device (i.e., through logging the user into the electronic device) based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, where the one or more aspects are defined by the users’ home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, disclosed of Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location. This allows for better security management by comparing a registered aspect of a respective geographic location with the input provided by the camera in order to deem that use of the device is permitted in the requested geographic location. This allows for the use of the device to only be permitted when in specific areas (e.g., at home, at the office, etc.). Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Howarter: based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, deny use of the device and take one or more actions (Howarter, Paragraph [0005], see “…The set of instructions may be executed by the processor to determine a geographic location of a vehicle, determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle, determine conditional paramteres of the mobile communication device, access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions, determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination”, where “access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions” is analogous to recognizing whether one or more aspects related to the geographic location have been preregistered and where “determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination” is analogous to denying use of the device (restricting) and taking one or more actions (configuring) based on the recognition of one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. Although Howarter does not specifically go into detail about the restriction and configuration happening based on failure to recognize, one of ordinary skill in the art would come to a conclusion that Howarters’ disclosure of restricting (or denying) use of a device based on geographic location can be construed to be of similar nature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, disclosed of Howarter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. This allows for better security management by utilizing a database of preregistered data corresponding to a geographic location in order to determine whether the device is permitted to be used in a specific geographic location. Howarter is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered (Howarter, Paragraph [0005]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Howarter, in further view of Vries et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0379593), hereinafter Vries.
Regarding claim 24, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Vries: The apparatus of Claim 18,
wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179], see “…Push button 206 is, optionally, used to turn the power on/off on the device by depressing the button and holding the button in the depressed state for a predefined time interval…”, which is analogous to a power on signal being generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device) (Vries, Paragraph [0221], see “…upon receipt of forcer sensor’s 717 signal, the processor may power up the electromagnet and/or alter the state of the electromagnet so as to ready electromagnet 770 to generate a magnetic field to actuate button 710…Upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor 717, the processor may control electromagnet 770 to move from stand-by status to a full power-on mode, thereby actuating button 710…”, wherein the trigger (of the electromagnet) comprises receipt of a power on signal (upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device, disclosed of Vries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device. This allows for better security management and power-management by triggering the device to power-on when its time to authorize use of the device. Vries is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os, in further view of Howarter, in further view of Vries.
Regarding claim 28, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Vries: The device of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179], see “…Push button 206 is, optionally, used to turn the power on/off on the device by depressing the button and holding the button in the depressed state for a predefined time interval…”, which is analogous to a power on signal being generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device) (Vries, Paragraph [0221], see “…upon receipt of forcer sensor’s 717 signal, the processor may power up the electromagnet and/or alter the state of the electromagnet so as to ready electromagnet 770 to generate a magnetic field to actuate button 710…Upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor 717, the processor may control electromagnet 770 to move from stand-by status to a full power-on mode, thereby actuating button 710…”, wherein the trigger (of the electromagnet) comprises receipt of a power on signal (upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device, disclosed of Vries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device. This allows for better security management and power-management by triggering the device to power-on when its time to authorize use of the device. Vries is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os, in further view of Vries.
Regarding claim 35, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Vries: The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179], see “…Push button 206 is, optionally, used to turn the power on/off on the device by depressing the button and holding the button in the depressed state for a predefined time interval…”, which is analogous to a power on signal being generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device) (Vries, Paragraph [0221], see “…upon receipt of forcer sensor’s 717 signal, the processor may power up the electromagnet and/or alter the state of the electromagnet so as to ready electromagnet 770 to generate a magnetic field to actuate button 710…Upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor 717, the processor may control electromagnet 770 to move from stand-by status to a full power-on mode, thereby actuating button 710…”, wherein the trigger (of the electromagnet) comprises receipt of a power on signal (upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, and techniques disclosed of Os, by implementing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device, disclosed of Vries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device. This allows for better security management and power-management by triggering the device to power-on when its time to authorize use of the device. Vries is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179]).
Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os, in further view of Howarter, in further view of Mullins (U.S. PGPub. 2017/0193686), hereinafter Mullins.
Regarding claim 42, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Mullins: The device of Claim 1, wherein the graphical object is presented to appear next to the registered object according to a user’s field of view (Mullins, Paragraph [0024], see “…The virtual object may be displayed in a transparent or clear display (e.g., see-through display) of the viewing device. The physical object may include a visual reference that the AR application can recognize. A visualization of the additional information, such as the virtual object overlaid or engaged with an image of the physical object, is generated in the display of the viewing device”, where “such as the virtual object engaged with an image of the physical object” is analogous to the graphical object (virtual object) is presented to appear next to the registered object (physical object) according to a user’s field of view).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the graphical object being presented to appear next to the registered object according to a user’s field of view, disclosed of Mullins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the graphical object being presented to appear next to the registered object according to a user’s field of view. This allows for better security management and a more user-friendly environment by providing the user with a display of the virtual object next to the registered object for comparison. Mullins is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the graphical object being presented to appear next to the registered object according to a user’s field of view (Mullins, Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 43, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Mullins: The device of Claim 42, wherein the graphical object is presented to appear as located at a same depth as the registered object relative to the device (Mullins, Paragraph [0024], see “…an Augmented Reality (AR) application in a mobile device allows a user to experience information, such as in the form of a virtual object overlaid on an image of the physical object captured by a camera of the mobile device…”) (Mullins, Paragraph [0074], see “…The dynamic 3D video model reconstruction module 508 may use the patch of images and their respective location data and depth data to reconstruct the 3D model of the target 130…”, which is analogous to the virtual object being reconstructed according to depth data and location data in order for the virtual object to appear as located at a same depth as the registered (physical) object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the graphical object being presented to appear as located at a same depth as the registered object relative to the device, disclosed of Mullins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the graphical object being presented to appear as located at a same depth as the registered object relative to the device. This allows for a more user-friendly environment by presenting the virtual object in the same manner that the physical object would be presented relative to the users device in order to provide the user with a better virtual reality experience. Mullins is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the graphical object being presented to appear as located at a same depth as the registered object relative to the device (Mullins, Paragraph [0074]).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os, in further view of Howarter, in further view of Sakamaki et al. (U.S. Patent 9,231,825), hereinafter Sakamaki.
Regarding claim 45, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Sakamaki: The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise shutting down the device (Sakamaki, Claim 1, see “…when the result of the comparison indicates that the terminal is being connected to a storage device not permitted for use, transmit to the terminal a power-off instruction…”, where “power-off instruction” is analogous to shutting down the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the one or more actions comprising shutting down the device, disclosed of Sakamaki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the one or more actions comprising shutting down the device. This allows for better security management by shutting down the device in order to prohibit the user from using the device when its not permitted. Sakamaki is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the one or more actions comprising shutting down the device (Sakamaki, Claim 1).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os, in further view of Howarter, in further view of TALWERDI et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2018/0121643), hereinafter Talwerdi.
Regarding claim 46, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Talwerdi: The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise placing the device in a sleep or hibernate mode (Talwerdi, Paragraph [0120], see “…denying access to apparatus 10 features and/or devices may involve any one or more of: putting the apparatus 10 processor into sleep mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the one or more actions comprising placing the device in a sleep mode, disclosed of Talwerdi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the one or more actions comprising placing the device in a sleep mode. This allows for better security management by putting the device into a sleep mode in order to prohibit the user from using the device when its not permitted. Talwerdi is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the one or more actions comprising placing the device in a sleep mode (Talwerdi, Paragraph [0120]).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os, in further view of Howarter, in further view of LIU et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2019/0342438), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 47, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Liu: The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise locking out people from using the device for a threshold period of time (Liu, Paragraph [0045], see “…the mobile phone is automatically locked for one minute”, which is analogous to locking out people from using the device for a threshold period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the one or more actions comprising locking out people from using the device for a threshold period of time, disclosed of Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the one or more actions comprising locking out people from using the device for a threshold period of time. This allows for better security management by locking people out from using the device for a threshold period of time in order to prohibit people from using the device when its not permitted. Liu is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the one or more actions comprising locking out people from using the device for a threshold period of time (Liu, Paragraph [0045]).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os, in further view of Howarter, in further view of Leyvand et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2014/0349747), hereinafter Leyvand.
Regarding claim 48, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Leyvand: The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise visually and/or audibly prompting a user to move to a different location (Leyvand, Paragraph [0026], see “…visual cue 208 is provided to prompt user 10 to move to a different location within 3D interaction space 300”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the one or more actions comprising visually and/or audibly prompting a user to move to a different location, disclosed of Leyvand.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the one or more actions comprising visually and/or audibly prompting a user to move to a different location. This allows for better security management and a more user-friendly environment by prompting the user to move to a different location in order to deem use of the device permissible. Leyvand is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the one or more actions comprising visually and/or audibly prompting a user to move to a different location (Leyvand, Paragraph [0026]).
Claims 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Os, in further view of Howarter, in further view of Brandli et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2022/0060622), hereinafter Brandli.
Regarding claim 49, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Brandli: The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
while recognizing one or more aspects related to the geographic location, leave a display of the device blank (Brandli, Paragraph [0046], see “…Two displays 110 are positioned by a frame in the regions in front of the user’s eyes and maybe transmissive for an augmented reality (AR) display device. Here again, the depth sensing assembly 120 and the motion sensing assembly 130 are located above the transparent displays 110 on the devices frame 12 to detect objects in front of the user”, which is analogous to leaving a display of the device blank (i.e., transmissive with no other data/information being presented) while recognizing one or more aspects (detecting objects in front of the user) related to the geographic location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of leaving a display of the device blank while recognizing one or more aspects, disclosed of Brandli.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of leaving a display of the device blank while recognizing one or more aspects. This allows for a more efficient and user-friendly environment for trying to recognize one or more aspects related to the users’ surroundings by leaving a display of the device blank in order for the user to scan the real-world environment. Brandli is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of leaving a display of the device blank while recognizing one or more aspects (Brandli, Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 50, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Os and Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Brandli: The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
while recognizing one or more aspects related to the geographic location, leave a display of the device transmissive with no images or data being presented (Brandli, Paragraph [0046], see “…Two displays 110 are positioned by a frame in the regions in front of the user’s eyes and maybe transmissive for an augmented reality (AR) display device. Here again, the depth sensing assembly 120 and the motion sensing assembly 130 are located above the transparent displays 110 on the devices frame 12 to detect objects in front of the user”, which is analogous to leaving a display of the device transmissive with no images or data being presented while recognizing one or more aspects (detecting objects in front of the user) related to the geographic location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, techniques disclosed of Os, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of leaving a display of the device transmissive while recognizing one or more aspects, disclosed of Brandli.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of leaving a display of the device transmissive while recognizing one or more aspects. This allows for a more efficient and user-friendly environment for trying to recognize one or more aspects related to the users’ surroundings by leaving a display of the device tranmissive in order for the user to scan the real-world environment. Brandli is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of leaving a display of the device transmissive while recognizing one or more aspects (Brandli, Paragraph [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-41, 44 and 51 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Remarks
Reconsideration of the above-captioned application is respectfully requested. The fact that Applicant has focused its comments distinguishing the present claims from the applied references and/or countering certain rejections must not be construed as acquiescence in other portions of rejections not specifically addressed.
The indicated allowability of Claims 38-41, 44, and 51 is gratefully acknowledged.
Existing claims and new claims have been variously amended in consonance with claims as previously presented.
All pending rejections are moot as they do not apply to any extant claim version.
Please also note that the objection to Claim 51 has been addressed above.
A.
Tele
p
hone Call - A
p
ril 15, 2024
Applicant telephoned the examiner on April 15, 2024. In accordance with that telephone call, Applicant welcomes a call back if the examiner has any suggestions for allowance.
B.
Allegations Concerning Howarter
Various rejections rely on Howarter's paragraph 5 as allegedly disclosing something akin to, taking Claim 1 as an example, denying use of a device based on failure to recognize the one or more aspects related to the geographic location. There are at least two shortcomings with the rejections' approach:
(1) First, it appears as though Howarter's paragraph 5 institutes is "restrictions" based on actual recognition of the allegedly analogous items from paragraph 5, not a failure to recognize those allegedly analogous items:
"On [sic] embodiment of the illustrative embodiments provides a method and database management system for controlling the operability of a mobile communications device. A geographic location of a vehicle
may be determined.
A position of the mobile communications device with in [sic] the vehicle
may be determined.
Conditional parameters of the mobile communications device
may be determined.
Database records correlating location information with restrictions may be accessed. A determination may be made whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographical location, the position of the mobile communications device within the vehicle, the conditional parameters, and the database records. The capabilities of the mobile communications device may be configured in response to the restrictions [emphasis added]."
(2) The rejections appear to sense this, alleging at pages 8-9 of the February 1, 2024 Office Action that "[a]lthough Howarter does not specifically go into detail about the restriction and configuration happening based on failure to recognize, one of ordinary skill in the art would come to a conclusion that Howarters' disclosure of restricting (or denying) use of a device based on geographic location can be construed to be of similar nature."
First, this is apparently an explicit concession that the relied-upon portion of Howarter does not disclose anything that fairly approaches the limitations at issue. Therefore, the use of Howarter's paragraph 5 fails to establish a legitimate prima facie case using evidence against the limitations at
issue in clear violation of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) and Federal Circuit precedent such as that set forth in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that evidence be used in support of any prima facie case. Accordingly, Applicant traverses the allegations concerning Howarter's paragraph 5 as being entirely unsupported by evidence. Any allegations these rejections contain should therefore be given no weight since argumentation cannot supplant objective evidence, In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) at 1470-71.
Second, the way the rejections approach the lack of evidence - by relying on allegations of skill in the art in lieu of evidence - also violates Federal Circuit precedent. Specifically, in Al-Site Corp. v. VSIInt'l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the Federal Circuit explicitly indicated the following, with emphasis added: "[R]arely will the skill in the art component operate to supply missing knowledge or prior art to reach an obviousness judgment... Skill in the art does not act as a bridge over gaps in substantive presentation of an obviousness case, but instead supplies the primary guarantee of objectivity in the process [emphasis added]." Al-Site Corp., supra. at 1324. The Federal Circuit went on to note that, "To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome... [emphasis added]" Al-Site Corp, supra. at 1324 (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed.Cir.1983)).
C.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 16 April 2024:
Claims 1, 12, 18, 44 and 51 are amended.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, 19-27, 29-34, 36-37, 42-43 and 45-50 are canceled.
Claims 52-60 are added.
Claims 1, 12, 18, 28, 35, 38-41, 44 and 51-60 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 16 April 2024:
a.	Applicant’s arguments that Howarter fails to teach or suggest the limitation of “denying use of a device based on failure to recognize the one or more aspects related to the geographic location” has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to Howarter, Paragraph [0005], see “…The set of instructions may be executed by the processor to determine a geographic location of a vehicle, determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle, determine conditional parameters of the mobile communication device, access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions, determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination”, where “access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions” is analogous to recognizing whether one or more aspects related to the geographic location have been preregistered and where “determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination” is analogous to denying use of the device (restricting) and taking one or more actions (configuring) based on the recognition of one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. Although Howarter does not specifically go into detail about the restriction and configuration happening based on failure to recognize, one of ordinary skill in the art would come to a conclusion that Howarters’ disclosure of restricting (or denying) use of a device based on geographic location can be construed to be of similar nature.
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 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.
Claims 1, 12, 18 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, JR. et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0394012), hereinafter Wright, in view of Cudak et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2015/0358769), hereinafter Cudak, in further view of Howarter et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2013/0237207), hereinafter Howarter.
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches A device (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…the AR or VR system may include a device for each user (e.g. a mobile device like a tablet or mobile phone, a head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device, desktop PC, or laptop)”, where “head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device” is being read as the device), comprising:
at least one processor (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…The user device may comprise a camera that allows the user to capture a stream of images from the user’s environment and a processing unit that analyzes images captured by the camera and determines relative position of the device within the environment (e.g., performs device tracking)”, where “processing unit” is being read as comprising at least one processor);
a camera accessible to the at least one processor (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…The user device may comprise a camera that allows the user to capture a stream of images from the user’s environment and a processing unit that analyzes images captured by the camera…”, where the camera is accessible to the at least one processor); and
storage accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor to (Wright, Paragraph [0026], see “…One example computing device in the form of a computer 120 may include a processing unit 202, memory 204, removable storage 212, and non-removable storage 214…the computing device may instead be a smartphone, a tablet, smartwatch, another wearable computing device type, or other computing device including the same, similar, fewer, or more elements than illustrated and described with regard to FIG. 2”) (Wright, Paragraph [0029], see “Computer-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium are executable by the processing unit 202 of the computer 120”, where “computer-readable medium” is being read as storage accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor):
responsive to a trigger, receive input from the camera (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 405, one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera”, where “one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera” is being read as receiving input from the camera and where the one or more images including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera responsive to a trigger, where the Examiner relied on BRI of how input is received from a camera, whether it’s a button being pressed or the camera focusing on an object before receiving input from the camera. It is safe to assume the camera is not just capturing images 24/7, and that there needs to be some sort of trigger that initiates the input received from the camera);
based on the input, recognize one or more aspects related to a geographic location that have been preregistered (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 410, the processor recognizes the object from the captured image(s)…”) (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data” is being read as recognizing one or more aspects related to a geographic location) (Wright, Paragraph [0179], see “…the database may store environment maps and may be filtered or searched by the geolocation to retrieve an environment map of the particular geolocation. Once the environment map is retrieved, it is loaded the user device compares features of objects identified in an image captured by the camera of the user device with information from the environment map. When there is a match of objects in the image to information in the environment map, find the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment…”, where “database may store environment maps…” is being read as preregistering aspects related to a geographic location), wherein the one or more aspects that are preregistered comprise one or more of: a registered object associated with the geographic location, geometry of the geographic location (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “identified object” is being read as a registered object and where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information…This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location)” is analogous to the registered object being associated with a geographic location) (Wright, Paragraph [0179], see “…the database may store environment maps and may be filtered or searched by the geolocation to retrieve an environment map of the particular geolocation. Once the environment map is retrieved, it is loaded the user device compares features of objects identified in an image captured by the camera of the user device with information from the environment map. When there is a match of objects in the image to information in the environment map, find the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment…”, where “the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment” is being read as the one or more aspects that are recognized comprising of geometry of the geographic location);
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, permit use of the device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “…Where the use of the electronic device has been restricted by preventing login attempts, the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location”, where “the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location” is analogous to permitting use of the device (i.e., through logging the user into the electronic device) based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, where the one or more aspects are defined by the users’ home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, disclosed of Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location. This allows for better security management by comparing a registered aspect of a respective geographic location with the input provided by the camera in order to deem that use of the device is permitted in the requested geographic location. This allows for the use of the device to only be permitted when in specific areas (e.g., at home, at the office, etc.). Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Howarter: based on failure to recognize the one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, deny use of the device (Howarter, Paragraph [0005], see “…The set of instructions may be executed by the processor to determine a geographic location of a vehicle, determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle, determine conditional parameters of the mobile communication device, access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions, determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination”, where “access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions” is analogous to recognizing whether one or more aspects related to the geographic location have been preregistered and where “determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination” is analogous to denying use of the device (restricting) and taking one or more actions (configuring) based on the recognition of one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. Although Howarter does not specifically go into detail about the restriction and configuration happening based on failure to recognize, one of ordinary skill in the art would come to a conclusion that Howarters’ disclosure of restricting (or denying) use of a device based on geographic location can be construed to be of similar nature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, disclosed of Howarter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. This allows for better security management by utilizing a database of preregistered data corresponding to a geographic location in order to determine whether the device is permitted to be used in a specific geographic location. Howarter is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered (Howarter, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Wright teaches A method, comprising:
responsive to a trigger, receiving, at a device, input from a camera (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 405, one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera”, where “one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera” is being read as receiving input from the camera and where the one or more images including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera responsive to a trigger, where the Examiner relied on BRI of how input is received from a camera, whether it’s a button being pressed or the camera focusing on an object before receiving input from the camera. It is safe to assume the camera is not just capturing images 24/7, and that there needs to be some sort of trigger that initiates the input received from the camera);
based on the input, using the device to recognize one or more elements related to a particular location that have been preregistered (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 410, the processor recognizes the object from the captured image(s)…”) (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data” is being read as recognizing one or more elements related to a particular location) (Wright, Paragraph [0179], see “…the database may store environment maps and may be filtered or searched by the geolocation to retrieve an environment map of the particular geolocation. Once the environment map is retrieved, it is loaded the user device compares features of objects identified in an image captured by the camera of the user device with information from the environment map. When there is a match of objects in the image to information in the environment map, find the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment…”, where “database may store environment maps…” is being read as preregistering elements related to a particular location);
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location that have been preregistered, permitting use of the device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “…Where the use of the electronic device has been restricted by preventing login attempts, the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location”, where “the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location” is analogous to permitting use of the device (i.e., through logging the user into the electronic device) based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, where the one or more aspects are defined by the users’ home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, disclosed of Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location. This allows for better security management by comparing a registered element of a respective particular location with the input provided by the camera in order to deem that use of the device is permitted in the requested particular location. This allows for the use of the device to only be permitted when in specific areas (e.g., at home, at the office, etc.). Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more element related to the particular location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Howarter: based on failure to recognize the one or more elements related to the particular location that have been preregistered, deny use of the device (Howarter, Paragraph [0005], see “…The set of instructions may be executed by the processor to determine a geographic location of a vehicle, determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle, determine conditional parameters of the mobile communication device, access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions, determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination”, where “access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions” is analogous to recognizing whether one or more aspects related to the geographic location have been preregistered and where “determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination” is analogous to denying use of the device (restricting) and taking one or more actions (configuring) based on the recognition of one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. Although Howarter does not specifically go into detail about the restriction and configuration happening based on failure to recognize, one of ordinary skill in the art would come to a conclusion that Howarters’ disclosure of restricting (or denying) use of a device based on geographic location can be construed to be of similar nature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, disclosed of Howarter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. This allows for better security management by utilizing a database of preregistered data corresponding to a geographic location in order to determine whether the device is permitted to be used in a specific geographic location. Howarter is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered (Howarter, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Wright teaches An apparatus (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…the AR or VR system may include a device for each user (e.g. a mobile device like a tablet or mobile phone, a head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device, desktop PC, or laptop)”, where “head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device” is being read as the device), comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium (CSRM) that is not a transitory signal, the computer readable storage medium comprising instructions executed by at least one processor to (Wright, Paragraph [0026], see “…One example computing device in the form of a computer 120 may include a processing unit 202, memory 204, removable storage 212, and non-removable storage 214…the computing device may instead be a smartphone, a tablet, smartwatch, another wearable computing device type, or other computing device including the same, similar, fewer, or more elements than illustrated and described with regard to FIG. 2”) (Wright, Paragraph [0029], see “Computer-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium are executable by the processing unit 202 of the computer 120”, where “computer-readable medium” is being read as storage accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor):
receive input from a camera (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 405, one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera”, where “one or more image(s) including at least a portion of an object are captured using a camera” is being read as receiving input from the camera);
based on the input, recognize one or more aspects related to a particular location that have been preregistered (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…At block 410, the processor recognizes the object from the captured image(s)…”) (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data” is being read as recognizing one or more aspects related to a geographic location) (Wright, Paragraph [0179], see “…the database may store environment maps and may be filtered or searched by the geolocation to retrieve an environment map of the particular geolocation. Once the environment map is retrieved, it is loaded the user device compares features of objects identified in an image captured by the camera of the user device with information from the environment map. When there is a match of objects in the image to information in the environment map, find the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment…”, where “database may store environment maps…” is being read as preregistering aspects related to a particular location), the one or more aspects comprising one or more of: geometry of the particular location, a registered object located at the particular location (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…the processor may extract visual features from the identified object. The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “identified object” is being read as a registered object and where “The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on the information…This may include…geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location)” is analogous to the registered object being associated with a geographic location) (Wright, Paragraph [0179], see “…the database may store environment maps and may be filtered or searched by the geolocation to retrieve an environment map of the particular geolocation. Once the environment map is retrieved, it is loaded the user device compares features of objects identified in an image captured by the camera of the user device with information from the environment map. When there is a match of objects in the image to information in the environment map, find the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment…”, where “the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment” is being read as the one or more aspects that are recognized comprising of geometry of the geographic location);
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the particular location that have been preregistered, permit use of a device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “…Where the use of the electronic device has been restricted by preventing login attempts, the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location”, where “the method may later allow login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location” is analogous to permitting use of the device (i.e., through logging the user into the electronic device) based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, where the one or more aspects are defined by the users’ home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, disclosed of Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location. This allows for better security management by comparing a registered element of a respective particular location with the input provided by the camera in order to deem that use of the device is permitted in the requested particular location. This allows for the use of the device to only be permitted when in specific areas (e.g., at home, at the office, etc.). Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of the one or more element related to the particular location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Howarter: based on failure to recognize the one or more aspects related to the particular location that have been preregistered, deny use of the device (Howarter, Paragraph [0005], see “…The set of instructions may be executed by the processor to determine a geographic location of a vehicle, determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle, determine conditional parameters of the mobile communication device, access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions, determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination”, where “access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions” is analogous to recognizing whether one or more aspects related to the geographic location have been preregistered and where “determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographic location…and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination” is analogous to denying use of the device (restricting) and taking one or more actions (configuring) based on the recognition of one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. Although Howarter does not specifically go into detail about the restriction and configuration happening based on failure to recognize, one of ordinary skill in the art would come to a conclusion that Howarters’ disclosure of restricting (or denying) use of a device based on geographic location can be construed to be of similar nature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered, disclosed of Howarter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered. This allows for better security management by utilizing a database of preregistered data corresponding to a geographic location in order to determine whether the device is permitted to be used in a specific geographic location. Howarter is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of denying use of the device and taking one or more actions based on failure to recognize one or more aspects related to the geographic location that have been preregistered (Howarter, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 57, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Howarter teaches The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
responsive to receipt of a power on signal, attempt to recognize the one or more aspects related to the particular location that have been preregistered (Wright, Paragraph [0087], see “…if the electronic device is able to detect situations in which the user is not actively using the device for tracking and/or recognition of objects (e.g., viewing the environment through the electronic device), the computing resources, and thus battery power, of the electronic device can be conserved by turning these algorithms off. The electronic device may be able to detect these situations by analyzing the images received from the camera and an IMU to switch off camera input and computer vision tasks…”, where “The electronic device may be able to detect these situations by analyzing the images received from the camera and an IMU to switch off camera input…” is being read as utilizing a “switch off” and “switch on” for camera input, therefore, when the camera input is switched on (responsive to receipt of a power on signal), the camera attempts to recognize the one or more aspects related to the location).
Claims 28, 35 and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Howarter, in further view of Vries et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0379593), hereinafter Vries.
Regarding claim 28, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Vries: The device of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179], see “…Push button 206 is, optionally, used to turn the power on/off on the device by depressing the button and holding the button in the depressed state for a predefined time interval…”, which is analogous to a power on signal being generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device) (Vries, Paragraph [0221], see “…upon receipt of forcer sensor’s 717 signal, the processor may power up the electromagnet and/or alter the state of the electromagnet so as to ready electromagnet 770 to generate a magnetic field to actuate button 710…Upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor 717, the processor may control electromagnet 770 to move from stand-by status to a full power-on mode, thereby actuating button 710…”, wherein the trigger (of the electromagnet) comprises receipt of a power on signal (upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device, disclosed of Vries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device. This allows for better security management and power-management by triggering the device to power-on when its time to authorize use of the device. Vries is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claim 35, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Vries: The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179], see “…Push button 206 is, optionally, used to turn the power on/off on the device by depressing the button and holding the button in the depressed state for a predefined time interval…”, which is analogous to a power on signal being generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device) (Vries, Paragraph [0221], see “…upon receipt of forcer sensor’s 717 signal, the processor may power up the electromagnet and/or alter the state of the electromagnet so as to ready electromagnet 770 to generate a magnetic field to actuate button 710…Upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor 717, the processor may control electromagnet 770 to move from stand-by status to a full power-on mode, thereby actuating button 710…”, wherein the trigger (of the electromagnet) comprises receipt of a power on signal (upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device, disclosed of Vries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device. This allows for better security management and power-management by triggering the device to power-on when its time to authorize use of the device. Vries is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claim 52, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Vries: The device of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal (Vries, Paragraph [0179], see “…Push button 206 is, optionally, used to turn the power on/off on the device by depressing the button and holding the button in the depressed state for a predefined time interval…”) (Vries, Paragraph [0221], see “…upon receipt of forcer sensor’s 717 signal, the processor may power up the electromagnet and/or alter the state of the electromagnet so as to ready electromagnet 770 to generate a magnetic field to actuate button 710…Upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor 717, the processor may control electromagnet 770 to move from stand-by status to a full power-on mode, thereby actuating button 710…”, wherein the trigger (of the electromagnet) comprises receipt of a power on signal (upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device, disclosed of Vries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device. This allows for better security management and power-management by triggering the device to power-on when its time to authorize use of the device. Vries is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claim 53, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Howarter do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Vries: The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal (Vries, Paragraph [0179], see “…Push button 206 is, optionally, used to turn the power on/off on the device by depressing the button and holding the button in the depressed state for a predefined time interval…”) (Vries, Paragraph [0221], see “…upon receipt of forcer sensor’s 717 signal, the processor may power up the electromagnet and/or alter the state of the electromagnet so as to ready electromagnet 770 to generate a magnetic field to actuate button 710…Upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor 717, the processor may control electromagnet 770 to move from stand-by status to a full power-on mode, thereby actuating button 710…”, wherein the trigger (of the electromagnet) comprises receipt of a power on signal (upon receipt of the output signal from force sensor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, techniques disclosed of Cudak, and techniques disclosed of Howarter, by implementing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device, disclosed of Vries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for permitting device use based on location recognized from camera input, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device. This allows for better security management and power-management by triggering the device to power-on when its time to authorize use of the device. Vries is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button on the device (Vries, Paragraph [0179]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-41, 44, 51, 54-56 and 58-60 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action.  Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  See MPEP § 706.07(a).  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20130137462A1: Claims:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a message and geographic location data from a device; processing the message to determine if the message is associated with geographic location data; and presenting the message in a graphical object having a graphical element indicating that the message is associated with the geographic location data, if the message is associated with the geographic location data; obtaining input to the graphical element; and presenting a map display with the geographic location of the device identified, in response to the input to the graphical element.
receiving a message and geographic location data from a device;
processing the message to determine if the message is associated with geographic location data; and
presenting the message in a graphical object having a graphical element indicating that the message is associated with the geographic location data, if the message is associated with the geographic location data;
obtaining input to the graphical element; and
presenting a map display with the geographic location of the device identified, in response to the input to the graphical element.
A method comprising: receiving a message and geographic location data from a device; processing the message to determine if the message is associated with geographic location data; and presenting the message in a graphical object having a graphical element indicating that the message is associated with the geographic location data, if the message is associated with the geographic location data; obtaining input to the graphical element; and presenting a map display with the geographic location of the device identified with a graphical placemark, in response to the input to the graphical element.
presenting a map display with the geographic location of the device identified with a graphical placemark, in response to the input to the graphical element.
The method of claim 2 , further comprising: obtaining input to the graphical placemark; and presenting a graphical object displaying location information associated with the geographic location.
obtaining input to the graphical placemark; and
presenting a graphical object displaying location information associated with the geographic location.
The method of claim 2 , wherein the device is a first device, the message is received by a second device, and further comprising: presenting a map display with the geographic location of the first device identified with a first graphical placemark and a current geographic location of the second device identified with a second graphical placemark.
presenting a map display with the geographic location of the first device identified with a first graphical placemark and a current geographic location of the second device identified with a second graphical placemark.
A method comprising: receiving a text message at a mobile device, the text message including contact information; decoding the text message including the contact information, responsive to receiving the text message; and adding the contact information to fields of a contact in an address book.
receiving a text message at a mobile device, the text message including contact information;
decoding the text message including the contact information, responsive to receiving the text message; and
adding the contact information to fields of a contact in an address book.
The method of claim 5 , wherein the text message is a short message service message.
A system comprising: a processor; and memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: presenting a graphical placemark on a map display, the graphical placemark corresponding to geographic location; obtaining a selection of the graphical placemark; presenting a graphical object that includes information associated with the geographic location, in response to the selection of the graphical placemark; receiving a selection of the graphical object; presenting a user interface for specifying two or more mechanisms for sharing the geographic location, in response to the selection of the graphical object; obtaining input to the user interface specifying a text messaging for sharing geographic location data for the geographic location with a device; and sending the geographic location data with a text message to the device, wherein the text message is modified to signal the presence of the geographic location data associated with the text message.
a processor; and
memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: presenting a graphical placemark on a map display, the graphical placemark corresponding to geographic location; obtaining a selection of the graphical placemark; presenting a graphical object that includes information associated with the geographic location, in response to the selection of the graphical placemark; receiving a selection of the graphical object; presenting a user interface for specifying two or more mechanisms for sharing the geographic location, in response to the selection of the graphical object; obtaining input to the user interface specifying a text messaging for sharing geographic location data for the geographic location with a device; and
presenting a graphical placemark on a map display, the graphical placemark corresponding to geographic location;
obtaining a selection of the graphical placemark;
presenting a graphical object that includes information associated with the geographic location, in response to the selection of the graphical placemark;
receiving a selection of the graphical object;
presenting a user interface for specifying two or more mechanisms for sharing the geographic location, in response to the selection of the graphical object;
obtaining input to the user interface specifying a text messaging for sharing geographic location data for the geographic location with a device; and
sending the geographic location data with a text message to the device, wherein the text message is modified to signal the presence of the geographic location data associated with the text message.
The system of claim 7 , wherein the operations further comprise: providing a virtual keyboard for typing the text message.
providing a virtual keyboard for typing the text message.
The system of claim 7 , wherein the geographic location data includes map data associated with the geographic location.
The system of claim 7 , wherein the geographic location data includes a link to a network-based map service for providing map data associated with the geographic location data.
A system comprising: a processor; and memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a message and geographic location data from a device; processing the message to determine if the message is associated with geographic location data; and presenting the message in a graphical object having a graphical element indicating that the message is associated with the geographic location data, if the message is associated with the geographic location data; obtaining input to the graphical element; and presenting a map display with the geographic location of the device identified with a graphical placemark, in response to the input to the graphical element.
memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a message and geographic location data from a device; processing the message to determine if the message is associated with geographic location data; and presenting the message in a graphical object having a graphical element indicating that the message is associated with the geographic location data, if the message is associated with the geographic location data; obtaining input to the graphical element; and presenting a map display with the geographic location of the device identified with a graphical placemark, in response to the input to the graphical element.
The system of claim 11 , wherein the instructions further comprise: obtaining input to the graphical placemark; and presenting a graphical object displaying location information associated with the geographic location.
Ref US20130237207A1: Claims:
A method for controlling the operability of a mobile communications device, said method comprising: determining a geographic location of a vehicle; determining a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle; determining conditional parameters of the mobile communications device; accessing database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions; determining whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographical location, the position of the mobile communications device within the vehicle, the conditional parameters, and the database records; and configuring the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination.
determining a geographic location of a vehicle;
determining a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle;
determining conditional parameters of the mobile communications device; accessing database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions; determining whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographical location, the position of the mobile communications device within the vehicle, the conditional parameters, and the database records; and
accessing database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions;
determining whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographical location, the position of the mobile communications device within the vehicle, the conditional parameters, and the database records; and
configuring the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination.
The method according to claim 1 , wherein the geographical location of the vehicle is determined in response to a global positioning system of a vehicle.
The method according to claim 1 , wherein the position indicates whether a user of the mobile communications device is operating the vehicle, and wherein the capabilities of the mobile communications device are restricted in response to determining the user of the mobile communications device is operating the vehicle.
The method according to claim 1 , wherein the database records are accessed from a remote location through a network.
The method according to claim 1 , wherein the database records are accessed from within the mobile communications device, and wherein the database records specify restrictions by location.
The method according to claim 1 , wherein the configuring further comprises: selectively restricting the capabilities of the mobile communications device utilizing the restriction determination.
selectively restricting the capabilities of the mobile communications device utilizing the restriction determination.
The method according to claim 1 , wherein the database records include laws, ordinances, and location-based rules restricting the capabilities of the mobile communications device.
The method according to claim 1 , further comprising: enabling the operability of the mobile communications device in response to determining that an emergency has occurred.
enabling the operability of the mobile communications device in response to determining that an emergency has occurred.
The method according to claim 1 , the conditional parameters include speed and altitude.
The method according to claim 9 , wherein the vehicle is a plane.
The method according to claim 1 , wherein determining the position of the mobile communications device is determined utilizing one or more sensors.
A database management system, the database management system comprising: a processor configured to execute a set of instructions; a memory configured to store a set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions are executed to: determine a geographic location of a vehicle; determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle; determine conditional parameters of the mobile communications device; access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions; determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographical location, the position of the mobile communications device within the vehicle, the conditional parameters, and the database records; and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination.
a processor configured to execute a set of instructions;
a memory configured to store a set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions are executed to: determine a geographic location of a vehicle; determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle; determine conditional parameters of the mobile communications device; access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions;
determine a geographic location of a vehicle;
determine a position of the mobile communication devices within the vehicle;
determine conditional parameters of the mobile communications device; access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions;
access database records correlating the geographic location with restrictions;
determine whether use of the mobile communications device should be restricted within the vehicle in response to the geographical location, the position of the mobile communications device within the vehicle, the conditional parameters, and the database records; and configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination.
configure the capabilities of the mobile communications device that are available in response to the restriction determination.
The database management system according to claim 12 , wherein the set of instructions are further executed to receive information from a global positioning system to make a location determination.
The database management system according to claim 12 , wherein the position indicates whether a user of the mobile communications device is operating the vehicle, and wherein the capabilities of the mobile communications device are restricted in response to determining the user of the mobile communications device is operating the vehicle.
The database management system according to claim 12 , wherein the database records specify restrictions by location.
The database management system according to claim 12 , wherein the database records include laws, ordinances, and location-based rules restricting the capabilities of the mobile communications device.
The database management system according to claim 12 , the conditional parameters include speed and altitude, and wherein the vehicle is a plane.
The database management system according to claim 12 , wherein the set of instructions are further executed to: enabling the operability of the mobile communications device in response to determining that an emergency has occurred.
The database management system according to claim 12 , wherein the conditional parameters include whether the vehicle is in motion.
The database management system according to claim 12 , wherein determining the position of the mobile communications device is determined utilizing one or more sensors.
Ref US20200379593A1: Claims:
A method, comprising: at an electronic device with a display, and a first input region that is separate from the display: detecting a first press input on the first input region; in response to detecting the first press input on the first input region: in accordance with a determination that the first press input meets first criteria, displaying, on the display, a first control corresponding to a first control function of the device, wherein the first control is displayed with a first size and includes a value indicator to represent that a current value of the first control function of the device is a first value; after displaying the first control with the first size and the value indicator representing the first value of the first control function: in accordance with a determination that a subsequent press input has not been detected on the first input region within a threshold time from when the first press input was detected, ceasing to display the first control; and in accordance with a determination that a second press input has been detected on the first input region within the threshold time from when the first press input was detected: adjusting the current value of the first control function of the device from the first value to a second value that is different from the first value, wherein the second value is selected in accordance with the second press input; adjusting a size of the first control from the first size to a second size distinct from the first size; and changing an appearance of the value indicator in the first control to represent that the current value of the first control function is the second value.
at an electronic device with a display, and a first input region that is separate from the display: detecting a first press input on the first input region; in response to detecting the first press input on the first input region: in accordance with a determination that the first press input meets first criteria, displaying, on the display, a first control corresponding to a first control function of the device, wherein the first control is displayed with a first size and includes a value indicator to represent that a current value of the first control function of the device is a first value; after displaying the first control with the first size and the value indicator representing the first value of the first control function: in accordance with a determination that a subsequent press input has not been detected on the first input region within a threshold time from when the first press input was detected, ceasing to display the first control; and in accordance with a determination that a second press input has been detected on the first input region within the threshold time from when the first press input was detected: adjusting the current value of the first control function of the device from the first value to a second value that is different from the first value, wherein the second value is selected in accordance with the second press input; adjusting a size of the first control from the first size to a second size distinct from the first size; and changing an appearance of the value indicator in the first control to represent that the current value of the first control function is the second value.
detecting a first press input on the first input region;
in response to detecting the first press input on the first input region: in accordance with a determination that the first press input meets first criteria, displaying, on the display, a first control corresponding to a first control function of the device, wherein the first control is displayed with a first size and includes a value indicator to represent that a current value of the first control function of the device is a first value;
in accordance with a determination that the first press input meets first criteria, displaying, on the display, a first control corres
[Truncated to input limit]