Office Action 3: Non-Final Rejection (2023-08-01)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness

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 both of: a registered object associated with the geographic location, geometry of the geographic location wherein the registered object has been registered based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the device to permit of use of the device; and
based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, permit use of the device.

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, wherein the one or more elements comprise a registered object, and wherein the registered object has been registered

based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the device to permit of use of the device; andbased on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, permitting use of the device.

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 geometry of a particular location and a registered object located at the particular location, wherein the registered object has been registered based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor to permit of use of a device; and
based on the recognition of the geometry of the particular location and the recognition of the registered object, permit use of \[\[a\]\]the device.

19-23. (canceled).2022

24\. (previously presented)The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
responsive to a trigger, recognize the geometry to permit use of the device, 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\. (previously presented)The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
responsive to a trigger, recognize the geometry to permit use of the device, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device or putting on the device.

26\. (previously presented)The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
responsive to a trigger, recognize the geometry to permit use of the device, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user.

27\. (previously presented)The device of Claim 1, wherein the geometry that is recognized comprises dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed, the dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room and comprising width and length of floors of the room.

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\. (previously presented)The device of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device or putting on the device.

30\. (previously presented)The device of Claim 29, wherein the device senses the user wearing or putting on the device based on input from one or more of. a proximity sensor, a motion sensor.

31\. (previously presented)The device of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of user input to authenticate a user.

32\. (previously presented)The device of Claim 31, wherein the user input comprises audible input indicating a password or personal identification number.

33\. (previously presented)The method of Claim 12, wherein the one or more elements that are recognized comprise geometry of the particular location.

34\. (previously presented)The method of Claim 33, wherein the geometry that is recognized comprises dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed, the dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room and comprising width and length of floors of the room.

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\. (previously presented)The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device or putting on the device.

37\. (previously presented)The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user.

38\. (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 point at one or more objects to register for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of the device.

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

as part of the registration process, presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects to register for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of the device.

40\. (new) The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects to register for subsequent recognition by the at least one processor to permit use of the device.

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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/13/2023 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 13 July 2023:
Claims 1, 12 and 18 are amended.
Claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-23 are canceled.
Claims 38-40 are added.
Claims 1, 12, 18 and 24-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 13 July 2023:
a.	Applicant’s arguments that Toda has a filing date after Applicant’s priority date, as such, it is not prior art and cannot be applied against the claims. Applicant is cognizant that Toda also claims priority to two Japanese applications. Those references have not been made of record or applied in the rejections, much less has it been proven that either of those two references discloses subject matter akin to what is disclosed in the later-filed U.S. Toda application has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to the fact that the AIA  draws a distinction between actually being entitled to priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application according to the definition of “effective filing date” of a claimed invention in AIA  35 U.S.C. 100(i)(1)(B), and merely being entitled to claim priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application according to the use of “effectively filed” in AIA  35 U.S.C. 102(d). As a result of this distinction, the question of whether a patent or published application is actually entitled to priority or benefit with respect to any of its claims is not at issue in determining the date the patent or published application was “effectively filed” for prior art purposes. Thus, there is no need to evaluate whether any claim of a U.S. patent document is actually entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386 when applying such a document as prior art. See MPEP 2136.03 for the reference date under pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102(e) of U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, and international application publications entitled to the benefit of the filing date of prior application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121 or 365(c).
AIA  35 U.S.C. 102(d) requires that a prior-filed application to which a priority or benefit claim is made must describe the subject matter from the U.S. patent document relied upon in a rejection. However, AIA  35 U.S.C. 102(d) does not require that this description meet the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As discussed previously with respect to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), the Office does not view the AIA  as changing the extent to which a claimed invention must be described for a prior art document to anticipate the claimed invention under AIA  35 U.S.C. 102.
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 33 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 ZHOU et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0207974), hereinafter Zhou, in further view of BAYKANER et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0387709), hereinafter Baykaner.
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 both of: a registered object associated with 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), geometry of the 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 Zhou: wherein the registered object has been registered based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the device to permit of use of the device (Zhou, Paragraph [0088], see “…the user device continues to point, and registers a series of such locations, thus forming the boundaries of a simple or otherwise, complex indoor environment. The user also points and registers object/point(s) of interest (e.g., doors, pictures on the walls, books, other objects). The respective 3D spatial coordinates (x,y,z) will be recorded in the map as well”, where “The user points and registers object/point(s) of interest” is analogous to the registered object being registered based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor, disclosed of Zhou.
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 a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor. This allows for better security management by utilizing a registered object as pointed to by the user for subsequent use by the processor in order for the processor to decide whether or not the object is valid. Zhou is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor (Zhou, Paragraph [0088]).
Additionally, assuming pure arguendo from Applicant regarding the fact that the references are not covering the limitation of “for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one process to permit use of a device”, Applicant’s attention is directed to Baykaner, Paragraph [0016], see “The memory and computer program code may be configured to, with the processor, enable the apparatus to allocate the respective permissions to the one or more further users based on at least one of their proximity to the first user, their location and orientation relative to the location of the target object…”, where the permissions are based on permitting use for the user and/or apparatus (i.e., device), which involves basing those permissions on their location and orientation relative to the location of the target object, which is analogous to basing the recognition of the location and the recognition of the registered object, to permit use of 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, and techniques disclosed of Zhou, by implementing techniques of utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device, disclosed of Baykaner.
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 utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device. This allows for better security management by utilizing both the location and registered object before permitting use of a device, which serves as a stronger authentication due to the evaluation of two different pieces of information. Baykaner is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device (Baykaner, Paragraph [0016]).
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), wherein the one or more elements comprise a registered object (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 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 elements 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 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 Zhou: wherein the registered object has been registered based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the device to permit of use of the device (Zhou, Paragraph [0088], see “…the user device continues to point, and registers a series of such locations, thus forming the boundaries of a simple or otherwise, complex indoor environment. The user also points and registers object/point(s) of interest (e.g., doors, pictures on the walls, books, other objects). The respective 3D spatial coordinates (x,y,z) will be recorded in the map as well”, where “The user points and registers object/point(s) of interest” is analogous to the registered object being registered based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor, disclosed of Zhou.
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 a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor. This allows for better security management by utilizing a registered object as pointed to by the user for subsequent use by the processor in order for the processor to decide whether or not the object is valid. Zhou is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor (Zhou, Paragraph [0088]).
Additionally, assuming pure arguendo from Applicant regarding the fact that the references are not covering the limitation of “for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one process to permit use of a device”, Applicant’s attention is directed to Baykaner, Paragraph [0016], see “The memory and computer program code may be configured to, with the processor, enable the apparatus to allocate the respective permissions to the one or more further users based on at least one of their proximity to the first user, their location and orientation relative to the location of the target object…”, where the permissions are based on permitting use for the user and/or apparatus (i.e., device), which involves basing those permissions on their location and orientation relative to the location of the target object, which is analogous to basing the recognition of the location and the recognition of the registered object, to permit use of 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, and techniques disclosed of Zhou, by implementing techniques of utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device, disclosed of Baykaner.
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 utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device. This allows for better security management by utilizing both the location and registered object before permitting use of a device, which serves as a stronger authentication due to the evaluation of two different pieces of information. Baykaner is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device (Baykaner, Paragraph [0016]).
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 geometry of 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 “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) and 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),
based on the recognition of the geometry of the particular location (Wright, Paragraph [0179], 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. The user device then displays information from the environment map for objects that are visible within the view of the current camera image”, 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 geometry of the particular location and the recognition of the registered object, 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 particular 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, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the recognition of 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 particular 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 particular location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Zhou: wherein the registered object has been registered based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor to permit use of a device (Zhou, Paragraph [0088], see “…the user device continues to point, and registers a series of such locations, thus forming the boundaries of a simple or otherwise, complex indoor environment. The user also points and registers object/point(s) of interest (e.g., doors, pictures on the walls, books, other objects). The respective 3D spatial coordinates (x,y,z) will be recorded in the map as well”, where “The user points and registers object/point(s) of interest” is analogous to the registered object being registered based on a user pointing at the object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques of a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor, disclosed of Zhou.
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 a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor. This allows for better security management by utilizing a registered object as pointed to by the user for subsequent use by the processor in order for the processor to decide whether or not the object is valid. Zhou is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of a user pointing at an object during a registration process for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one processor (Zhou, Paragraph [0088]).
Additionally, assuming pure arguendo from Applicant regarding the fact that the references are not covering the limitation of “for the object to be subsequently recognized by the at least one process to permit use of a device”, Applicant’s attention is directed to Baykaner, Paragraph [0016], see “The memory and computer program code may be configured to, with the processor, enable the apparatus to allocate the respective permissions to the one or more further users based on at least one of their proximity to the first user, their location and orientation relative to the location of the target object…”, where the permissions are based on permitting use for the user and/or apparatus (i.e., device), which involves basing those permissions on their location and orientation relative to the location of the target object, which is analogous to basing the recognition of the location and the recognition of the registered object, to permit use of 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, and techniques disclosed of Zhou, by implementing techniques of utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device, disclosed of Baykaner.
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 utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device. This allows for better security management by utilizing both the location and registered object before permitting use of a device, which serves as a stronger authentication due to the evaluation of two different pieces of information. Baykaner is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of utilizing a location and object to permit use of a device (Baykaner, Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 33, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner teaches The method of Claim 12, wherein the one or more elements that are recognized comprise geometry of the 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 “the geometric relationship of the device relative to the environment” is being read as the one or more elements that are recognized comprising of geometry of the particular location)
Claims 24, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Zhou, in further view of Baykaner, in further view of TODA et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0144393), hereinafter Toda.
Regarding claim 24, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner teaches The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
(Wright, Paragraph [0179], 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. The user device then displays information from the environment map for objects that are visible within the view of the current camera image”, 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 as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Toda: responsive to a trigger, recognize the geometry to permit use of the device, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button the device (Toda, Paragraph [0074], see “…the image capturing device 10 may automatically start processing to distribute data, in response to a user operation on the operation unit 115 or a power-on of the image capturing device 10 as a trigger”, where “the image capturing device 10 may automatically start processing…in response to a power-on of the image capturing device 10 as a trigger” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, wherein the power on signal generated is responsive to a press of a power button).
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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for an image capturing device, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button a device, disclosed of Toda.
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 a device. This allows for better security management by recognizing the geometry of a specific location a device is powered on at in order to determine whether or not the device is permitted to be used at the location. Toda 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 a device (Toda, Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 28, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Toda: 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 (Toda, Paragraph [0074], see “…the image capturing device 10 may automatically start processing to distribute data, in response to a user operation on the operation unit 115 or a power-on of the image capturing device 10 as a trigger”, where “the image capturing device 10 may automatically start processing…in response to a power-on of the image capturing device 10 as a trigger” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, wherein the power on signal generated is responsive to a press of a power button).
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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for an image capturing device, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button a device, disclosed of Toda.
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 a device. This allows for better security management by recognizing the geometry of a specific location a device is powered on at in order to determine whether or not the device is permitted to be used at the location. Toda 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 a device (Toda, Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 35, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Toda: 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 (Toda, Paragraph [0074], see “…the image capturing device 10 may automatically start processing to distribute data, in response to a user operation on the operation unit 115 or a power-on of the image capturing device 10 as a trigger”, where “the image capturing device 10 may automatically start processing…in response to a power-on of the image capturing device 10 as a trigger” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of a power on signal, wherein the power on signal generated is responsive to a press of a power button).
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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for an image capturing device, comprising of the trigger comprising receipt of a power on signal, the power on signal generated responsive to a press of a power button a device, disclosed of Toda.
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 a device. This allows for better security management by recognizing the geometry of a specific location a device is powered on at in order to determine whether or not the device is permitted to be used at the location. Toda 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 a device (Toda, Paragraph [0074]).
Claims 25, 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Zhou, in further view of Baykaner, in further view of YANKOVICH et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2019/0156582), hereinafter Yankovich.
Regarding claim 25, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Yankovich: The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
responsive to a trigger, recognize the geometry to permit use of the device, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device or putting on the device (Yankovich, Paragraph [0065], see “…a user 128 is looking into a living room of her home while wearing a wearable device 120. As discussed above, the view 126 provided via the wearable device 120 comprises a view of the real-world environment 124 from the perspective of the user 128 in some configurations”) (Yankovich, Paragraph [0066], see “…the user 128 may provide input to the wearable device 120, indicating that she is shopping for a new television for the living room. In response, the wearable device 120 is configured to scan the living room to recognize objects and/or determine characteristics (e.g., geometrical boundaries, a size, display locations, etc.) of the living room”, where “the user 128 may provide input to the wearable device 120” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device, due to the wearable device (i.e., such as an OCULUS), powering on the lenses of the wearable device when it senses a user wearing the device, and where “In response, the wearable device 120 is configured to scan the living room to recognize objects and/or determine characteristics” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry to permit use of 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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for efficient rendering of 3D models using model placement metadata, comprising of responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device, disclosed of Yankovich.
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 responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device. This allows for a more user-friendly environment, whilst reducing the power consumed by the wearable device by recognizing the geometry of the location of the wearable device once the user puts on the wearable device. Yankovich is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device (Yankovich, Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 29, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Yankovich: The device of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device or putting on the device (Yankovich, Paragraph [0065], see “…a user 128 is looking into a living room of her home while wearing a wearable device 120. As discussed above, the view 126 provided via the wearable device 120 comprises a view of the real-world environment 124 from the perspective of the user 128 in some configurations”) (Yankovich, Paragraph [0066], see “…the user 128 may provide input to the wearable device 120, indicating that she is shopping for a new television for the living room. In response, the wearable device 120 is configured to scan the living room to recognize objects and/or determine characteristics (e.g., geometrical boundaries, a size, display locations, etc.) of the living room”, where “the user 128 may provide input to the wearable device 120” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device, due to the wearable device (i.e., such as an OCULUS), powering on the lenses of the wearable device when it senses a user wearing the device, and where “In response, the wearable device 120 is configured to scan the living room to recognize objects and/or determine characteristics” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry to permit use of 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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for efficient rendering of 3D models using model placement metadata, comprising of responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device, disclosed of Yankovich.
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 responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device. This allows for a more user-friendly environment, whilst reducing the power consumed by the wearable device by recognizing the geometry of the location of the wearable device once the user puts on the wearable device. Yankovich is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device (Yankovich, Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 36, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Yankovich: The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device or putting on the device (Yankovich, Paragraph [0065], see “…a user 128 is looking into a living room of her home while wearing a wearable device 120. As discussed above, the view 126 provided via the wearable device 120 comprises a view of the real-world environment 124 from the perspective of the user 128 in some configurations”) (Yankovich, Paragraph [0066], see “…the user 128 may provide input to the wearable device 120, indicating that she is shopping for a new television for the living room. In response, the wearable device 120 is configured to scan the living room to recognize objects and/or determine characteristics (e.g., geometrical boundaries, a size, display locations, etc.) of the living room”, where “the user 128 may provide input to the wearable device 120” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device, due to the wearable device (i.e., such as an OCULUS), powering on the lenses of the wearable device when it senses a user wearing the device, and where “In response, the wearable device 120 is configured to scan the living room to recognize objects and/or determine characteristics” is analogous to responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry to permit use of 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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for efficient rendering of 3D models using model placement metadata, comprising of responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device, disclosed of Yankovich.
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 responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device. This allows for a more user-friendly environment, whilst reducing the power consumed by the wearable device by recognizing the geometry of the location of the wearable device once the user puts on the wearable device. Yankovich is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of responsive to a trigger, recognizing the geometry, wherein the trigger comprises the device sensing a user wearing the device (Yankovich, Paragraph [0066]).
Claims 26, 31-32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Zhou, in further view of Baykaner, in further view of Sarir et al. (U.S. Patent 10,929,098), hereinafter Sarir.
Regarding claim 26, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Sarir: The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
responsive to a trigger, recognize the geometry to permit use of the device, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user (Sarir, Column 10, Lines 54 – 58, see “…Authentication may be required, for example, when a user makes a request (e.g., via audible input such as a voice command) to initiate a new session as an audible session with the voice assistance device 200”, where “audible input such as a voice command” is analogous to the trigger, which is used to authenticate a user).
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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for conducting a session over audible interfaces, comprising of wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user, disclosed of Sarir.
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 wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user. This allows for a more user-friendly environment by allowing the user to audibly trigger a certain feature on the device instead of having them manually input the command. Sarir is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user (Sarir, Column 10, Lines 54 – 58).
Regarding claim 31, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Sarir: The device of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of user input to authenticate a user (Sarir, Column 10, Lines 54 – 58, see “…Authentication may be required, for example, when a user makes a request (e.g., via audible input such as a voice command) to initiate a new session as an audible session with the voice assistance device 200”, where “audible input such as a voice command” is analogous to the trigger, which is used to authenticate a user).
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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for conducting a session over audible interfaces, comprising of wherein the trigger comprises receipt of user input to authenticate a user, disclosed of Sarir.
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 wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user. This allows for better security management, as well as a more user-friendly environment by authenticating the user upon receipt of user input to authenticate the user. Sarir is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of wherein the trigger comprises receipt of user input to authenticate a user (Sarir, Column 10, Lines 54 – 58).
Regarding claim 32, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Sarir: The device of Claim 31, wherein the user input comprises audible input indicating a password or personal identification number (Sarir, Column 19, Lines 29 – 39, see “…User authentication may be performed via user credentials, such as a combination of user name and shared secret (e.g., password, passcode, PIN, security questions answers or the like)…the request may require a passcode provided for display on the second electronic device to be provided by audible input to the first electronic 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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for conducting a session over audible interfaces, comprising of the user input comprising audible input indicating a password or PIN, disclosed of Sarir.
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, c comprising of the user input comprising audible input indicating a password or PIN. This allows for better security management, as well as a more user-friendly environment by authenticating the user upon receipt of user input indicating a password or PIN. Sarir is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the user input comprising audible input indicating a password or PIN (Sarir, Column 19, Lines 29 – 39).
Regarding claim 37, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Sarir: The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user (Sarir, Column 10, Lines 54 – 58, see “…Authentication may be required, for example, when a user makes a request (e.g., via audible input such as a voice command) to initiate a new session as an audible session with the voice assistance device 200”, where “audible input such as a voice command” is analogous to the trigger, which is used to authenticate a user).
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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for conducting a session over audible interfaces, comprising of wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user, disclosed of Sarir.
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 wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user. This allows for a more user-friendly environment by allowing the user to audibly trigger a certain feature on the device instead of having them manually input the command. Sarir is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user (Sarir, Column 10, Lines 54 – 58).
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Zhou, in further view of Baykaner, in further view of Yankovich, in further view of Tiwari et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2018/0075168), hereinafter Tiwari.
Regarding claim 27, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Yankovich: The device of Claim 1, wherein the geometry that is recognized comprises dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed (Yankovich, FIG. 3A, which depicts a measurement of the geometry of the real-world environment, which involves computing dimensions of the room in which the device is disposed) (Yankovich, Paragraph [0036], see “…the wearable device might be configured to capture image data of the room in which the user is located and to compute the geometry of the room based upon the captured data”, where “geometry of the room” is analogous to recognizing dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed), the dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room (Yankovich, FIG. 3A, which depicts the dimensions of the room comprising the width of walls of the room, due to the wearable device capturing image data of the room and measuring the distance between the walls and floors of the room) (Yankovich, FIG. 3B, which depicts the dimensions of the room comprising the height of the walls of the room)
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 Zhou and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for efficient rendering of 3D models using model placement metadata, comprising of the geometry that is recognized comprising dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room, disclosed of Yankovich.
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 geometry that is recognized comprising dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room. This allows for the device to analyze the dimensions of a room before being permitted to be used in certain situations such as: the device being unsafe to be used in certain areas that are small or have too many objects in the room. Yankovich is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the geometry that is recognized comprising dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room (Yankovich, FIGS. 3A and 3B).
Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou, Baykaner and Yankovich do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Tiwari: the dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room and comprising width and length of floors of the room (Tiwari, Paragraph [0006], see “Capturing dimensions can include auto detecting doors and window frames as shown in the image. The step of capturing dimensions can also include recording the distances, azimuth angles, and direction from the first location to various points of the floor-to-wall intersections. Capturing dimensions can further include correcting the distances and angles for errors to produce a two-dimensional image of the room geometry”, where “capturing dimensions” is analogous to capturing the width and length of floors of the room, due to the capturing dimensions also including recording distances and direction of floor-to-wall intersections) (Tiwari, Paragraph [0165], see “…The floor plan can list an describe different elements of the building such as walls, doors, windows, ceiling, floors, areas, and objects within and their particular relationships, attributes, and properties, e.g., height, width, material, shape…”, where “height, width” is analogous to width and length of floors of a room).
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 Zhou, techniques disclosed of Baykaner and techniques disclosed of Yankovich, by implementing techniques for capturing and analyzing multidimensional building information, comprising of the dimensions comprising width and length of floors of the room, disclosed of Tiwari.
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 dimensions comprising width and length of floors of the room. This allows for the device to analyze the dimensions of a room before being permitted to be used in certain situations such as: the device being unsafe to be used in certain areas that are small or have too many objects in the room. Tiwari is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the dimensions comprising width and length of floors of the room (Tiwari, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 34, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Yankovich: The method of Claim 33, wherein the geometry that is recognized comprises dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed (Yankovich, FIG. 3A, which depicts a measurement of the geometry of the real-world environment, which involves computing dimensions of the room in which the device is disposed) (Yankovich, Paragraph [0036], see “…the wearable device might be configured to capture image data of the room in which the user is located and to compute the geometry of the room based upon the captured data”, where “geometry of the room” is analogous to recognizing dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed), the dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room  (Yankovich, FIG. 3A, which depicts the dimensions of the room comprising the width of walls of the room, due to the wearable device capturing image data of the room and measuring the distance between the walls and floors of the room) (Yankovich, FIG. 3B, which depicts the dimensions of the room comprising the height of the walls of the room)
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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques for efficient rendering of 3D models using model placement metadata, comprising of the geometry that is recognized comprising dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room, disclosed of Yankovich.
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 geometry that is recognized comprising dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room. This allows for the device to analyze the dimensions of a room before being permitted to be used in certain situations such as: the device being unsafe to be used in certain areas that are small or have too many objects in the room. Yankovich is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the geometry that is recognized comprising dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room (Yankovich, FIGS. 3A and 3B).
Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou, Baykaner and Yankovich do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Tiwari: the dimensions comprising height and width of walls of the room and comprising width and length of floors of the room (Tiwari, Paragraph [0006], see “Capturing dimensions can include auto detecting doors and window frames as shown in the image. The step of capturing dimensions can also include recording the distances, azimuth angles, and direction from the first location to various points of the floor-to-wall intersections. Capturing dimensions can further include correcting the distances and angles for errors to produce a two-dimensional image of the room geometry”, where “capturing dimensions” is analogous to capturing the width and length of floors of the room, due to the capturing dimensions also including recording distances and direction of floor-to-wall intersections) (Tiwari, Paragraph [0165], see “…The floor plan can list an describe different elements of the building such as walls, doors, windows, ceiling, floors, areas, and objects within and their particular relationships, attributes, and properties, e.g., height, width, material, shape…”, where “height, width” is analogous to width and length of floors of a room).
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 Zhou, techniques disclosed of Baykaner, and techniques disclosed of Yankovich, by implementing techniques for capturing and analyzing multidimensional building information, comprising of the dimensions comprising width and length of floors of the room, disclosed of Tiwari.
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 dimensions comprising width and length of floors of the room. This allows for the device to analyze the dimensions of a room before being permitted to be used in certain situations such as: the device being unsafe to be used in certain areas that are small or have too many objects in the room. Tiwari is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the dimensions comprising width and length of floors of the room (Tiwari, Paragraph [0006]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Zhou, in further view of Baykaner, in further view of Yankovich, in further view of CHO et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2019/0302445), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 30, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou, Baykaner and Yankovich do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cho: The device of Claim 29, wherein the device senses the user wearing or putting on the device based on input from one or more of: a proximity sensor, a motion sensor (Cho, Paragraph [0032], see “The sensor 110 may include at least one of an optical sensor for sensing light or a proximity sensor for determining whether the user wears the wearable device 101”).
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 Zhou, techniques disclosed of Baykaner and techniques disclosed of Yankovich, by implementing techniques for a wearable device, comprising of the device sensing the user wearing or putting on the device based on input from a proximity sensor, disclosed of Cho.
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 device sensing the user wearing or putting on the device based on input from a proximity sensor. This allows for better efficiency and effectiveness for the system by allowing the device to know exactly when the user is currently wearing the wearable device or about to put on the wearable device in order for the device to execute its respective process. Cho is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the device sensing the user wearing or putting on the device based on input from a proximity sensor (Cho, Paragraph [0032]).
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Zhou, in further view of Baykaner, in further view of UHM et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2023/0222744), hereinafter Uhm.
Regarding claim 38, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Uhm: 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 point at one or more objects (Uhm, Paragraph [0079], see “…the electronic device may display a notification notifying that the dominant eye determination has ended on augmented reality content and display a guide instructing a user to point to an object, which the user wants to select on augmented reality content, on the augmented reality content”, where “display a guide instructing a user to point to an object” is analogous to presenting a user interface on a display, the GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects) to register for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of the device (See Rejection of Claim 1 for teachings of the limitation for registering for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of 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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques of presenting a user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects, disclosed of Uhm.
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 user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects. This allows for a more user-friendly environment by prompting the user to point at a specific object when operating the augmented reality electronic device, in order for the device to process the object. Uhm is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of presenting a user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects (Uhm, Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 39, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Uhm: The method of Claim 12, comprising:
as part of the registration process, presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects (Uhm, Paragraph [0079], see “…the electronic device may display a notification notifying that the dominant eye determination has ended on augmented reality content and display a guide instructing a user to point to an object, which the user wants to select on augmented reality content, on the augmented reality content”, where “display a guide instructing a user to point to an object” is analogous to presenting a user interface on a display, the GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects) to register for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of the device (See Rejection of Claim 12 for teachings of the limitation for registering for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of 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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques of presenting a user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects, disclosed of Uhm.
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 user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects. This allows for a more user-friendly environment by prompting the user to point at a specific object when operating the augmented reality electronic device, in order for the device to process the object. Uhm is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of presenting a user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects (Uhm, Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 40, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Zhou and Baykaner do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Uhm: The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the instructions are executable to:
present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects (Uhm, Paragraph [0079], see “…the electronic device may display a notification notifying that the dominant eye determination has ended on augmented reality content and display a guide instructing a user to point to an object, which the user wants to select on augmented reality content, on the augmented reality content”, where “display a guide instructing a user to point to an object” is analogous to presenting a user interface on a display, the GUI comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects) to register for subsequent recognition by the at least one processor to permit use of the device (See Rejection of Claim 18 for teachings of the limitation for registering for subsequent recognition by the device to permit use of 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 Zhou, and techniques disclosed of Baykaner, by implementing techniques of presenting a user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects, disclosed of Uhm.
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 user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects. This allows for a more user-friendly environment by prompting the user to point at a specific object when operating the augmented reality electronic device, in order for the device to process the object. Uhm is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of presenting a user interface on a display, the user interface comprising a prompt instructing a user to point at one or more objects (Uhm, Paragraph [0079]).
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.
Support for the amendments to the independent claims may be found in the specification as published at Figure 4 as well as paragraphs 57, 59, and 66. Support for new Claims 42-48 may also be found in those portions of the specification.
Support for the amendments to Claims 38-40, and for new Claim 41, may be found in the specification as published at Figures 7 and 8 as well as paragraphs 72-75.
Support for new Claims 49 and 50 may be found in the specification as published at paragraph 56.
Support for new Claim 51 may be found in the specification as published at Figure 9 and paragraph 78.
Without acquiescing in any of them, all pending rejections are moot as they do not apply to any extant claim version.
A.
Tele
p
hone Call - Oct. 18
,
Applicant telephoned the examiner on October 18, 2023. Claim amendments were discussed. In accordance with that telephone call, Applicant welcomes a call back if the examiner has any suggestions for allowance.
B.
Toda and Uhm References
Applicant notes that it maintains its previous observations regarding the Toda reference as applied against Claims 24, 28, and 35. Applicant also notes that the same issue also exists now in relation to the newly-cited reference Uhm.
Indeed, the Response to Arguments appears to believe that since the different applicants in each of those cases might have claimed priority to which they were not truly entitled for certain subject matter disclosed in their later filings, that this impropriety may still be used by the Office against the current Applicant to assert a later-filed reference that it should not actually be asserting. That cannot be the Office's position. The initial burden placed on the proponent of the rejections remains the same - reject the claims using subject matter that was actually disclosed prior to Applicant's own priority date. When a later-filed reference is used but claims priority to an earlier- filed reference, the relied-upon subject matter from the reference still does not have an earlier effective filing date unless the supporting document itself discloses the same relied-upon subject matter.
This is supported by the law. In fact, the Response to Arguments cites to the relevant law itself - 35 U.S.C. 102(d). This portion of the statute actually supports Applicant's previous observations:
"(d)Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.-For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2),
such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application
(1)if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or
(2)if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter [emphasis added]."
In the present instance, no showing has been made that the earlier filings upon which Toda and Uhm rely actually describe the relied-upon subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2). As the proponent of the rejection, the Office bears the initial evidentiary burden of performing such an inquiry to discern whether a later-filed reference can be legitimately applied per 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2). So contrary to assertions in the Response to Arguments, this is in fact an issue "for prior art purposes" under the statute and there is indeed a statutory "need to evaluate" whether the relied- upon subject matter from the later-filed references is actually entitled to the priority dates asserted.
Additionally, since the Office has not yet fulfilled its initial evidentiary burden in the present instance in terms of determining whether the relied-upon subject matter is indeed entitled to an earlier effective filing date, 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1) applies here instead - meaning the actual filing date of Toda and Uhm themselves control. They are therefore inapplicable references against the claims at issue since Applicant's own case was filed before the actual filing dates of those references.
For completeness, Applicant also notes that the comment in the Response to Arguments pertaining to enablement is confusing since enablement was not previously raised as an issue. The issue raised is whether the relied-upon subject matter is disclosed in earlier filings to which priority is claimed. It is requested that this comment be withdrawn or, if somehow still perceived as relevant, that the comment be clarified to make the record clear prior to appeal.
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 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

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20210207974A1: Claims:
An object mapping system associated with expedient determination of a location of one or more coordinate points of interest (POI) in a bounded 3D environment, the system comprising: a laser pointer device; an anchor node device that includes a processor that performs the following operations: creating an initial map comprising unique characteristics associated with a bounded physical environment in response to a request by a user via a computing device; performing object recognition analysis in order to determine labels associated with objects using image recognition processing based at least on a user command to locate one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment; generating a world map representation with editable object tags associated with the one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment; providing navigation instructions to guide the user device to the one or more objects of interest based on a distance analysis of a current location of the user device to a destination location; generating a control signal to the anchor node based on an angle analysis associated with the destination location and the object of interest location; processing the control signal using the anchor node to facilitate rotation of at least one laser pointer device in one or more of an (x,y,z) coordinate-based directional angle; and generating a laser signal that targets the one or more objects of interest for expedient determination of the one or more coordinate points of interest (POI) associated with the one or more objects of interest and respective location.
a laser pointer device;
an anchor node device that includes a processor that performs the following operations: creating an initial map comprising unique characteristics associated with a bounded physical environment in response to a request by a user via a computing device; performing object recognition analysis in order to determine labels associated with objects using image recognition processing based at least on a user command to locate one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment; generating a world map representation with editable object tags associated with the one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment; providing navigation instructions to guide the user device to the one or more objects of interest based on a distance analysis of a current location of the user device to a destination location; generating a control signal to the anchor node based on an angle analysis associated with the destination location and the object of interest location; processing the control signal using the anchor node to facilitate rotation of at least one laser pointer device in one or more of an (x,y,z) coordinate-based directional angle; and generating a laser signal that targets the one or more objects of interest for expedient determination of the one or more coordinate points of interest (POI) associated with the one or more objects of interest and respective location.
creating an initial map comprising unique characteristics associated with a bounded physical environment in response to a request by a user via a computing device;
performing object recognition analysis in order to determine labels associated with objects using image recognition processing based at least on a user command to locate one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment;
generating a world map representation with editable object tags associated with the one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment;
providing navigation instructions to guide the user device to the one or more objects of interest based on a distance analysis of a current location of the user device to a destination location;
generating a control signal to the anchor node based on an angle analysis associated with the destination location and the object of interest location;
processing the control signal using the anchor node to facilitate rotation of at least one laser pointer device in one or more of an (x,y,z) coordinate-based directional angle; and
generating a laser signal that targets the one or more objects of interest for expedient determination of the one or more coordinate points of interest (POI) associated with the one or more objects of interest and respective location.
The system as recited in claim 1 , wherein the user command is transmitted using one or more of selection of the object of interest via a user interface selection menu and a voice command.
The system as recited in claim 2 , wherein the system implements interpretation of the voice command in order to transmit a control signal to the anchor node.
The system as recited in claim 1 , wherein generating the control signal to the anchor node based on an angle analysis, further comprises a determination of at least one of a horizontal and vertical rotational value associated with the relative location of the object of interest to the anchor node.
The system as recited in claim 4 , wherein the determination of at least one of a horizontal and vertical rotational value associated with the relative location of the object of interest to the anchor node facilitates rotation of the laser pointer device, using the at least one of the horizontal and vertical rotational value as determined.
The system as recited in claim 4 , wherein the determination of at least one of a horizontal and vertical rotational value is further based on an absolute location of the object of interest in the world map representation using a first (x,y,z) coordinate value and an absolute location of the anchor device using a second (x,y,z) coordinate value.
The system as recited in claim 6 , wherein the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment comprise one or more of 2D user trajectories, wall boundaries and 3D points of interest (POI).
The system as recited in claim 7 , wherein the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment further comprise underlying point cloud information that comprises 3D coordinates of feature points in the bounded physical environment and a visual features based world map, used for re-localization when a change in system status occurs.
The system as recited in claim 1 , wherein the world map representation is further based on augmented reality in displaying labels on real world images associated with the bounded physical environment.
The system as recited in claim 1 , wherein generating the world map representation further comprises registering a series of 3D coordinates associated with objects of interest or points of interest associated with the user device.
The system as recited in claim 1 , wherein generating the world map representation further comprises mapping boundaries associated with a complex bounded physical environment by using acoustic echo signals, in order to refine respective boundaries drawn for the complex bounded physical environment in the world map representation.
An object mapping method associated with expedient determination of a location of one or more coordinate points of interest (POI) in a bounded 3D environment, the method comprising: an anchor node device that includes a processor that performs the following operations: creating an initial map comprising unique characteristics associated with a bounded physical environment in response to a request by a user via a computing device; performing object recognition analysis in order to determine labels associated with objects using image recognition processing based at least on a user command to locate one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment; generating a world map representation with editable object tags associated with the one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment; providing navigation instructions to guide the user device to the one or more objects of interest based on a distance analysis of a current location of the user device to a destination location; generating a control signal to the anchor node based on an angle analysis associated with the destination location and the object of interest location; processing the control signal using the anchor node to facilitate rotation of at least one laser pointer device in one or more of an (x,y,z) coordinate-based directional angle; and generating a laser signal that targets the one or more objects of interest for expedient determination of the one or more coordinate points of interest (POI) associated with the one or more objects of interest and respective location.
The method as recited in claim 12 , wherein the user command is transmitted using one or more of selection of the object of interest via a user interface selection menu and a voice command.
The method as recited in claim 13 , wherein the method implements interpretation of the voice command in order to transmit a control signal to the anchor node.
The method as recited in claim 12 , wherein generating the control signal to the anchor node based on an angle analysis, further comprises a determination of at least one of a horizontal and vertical rotational value associated with the relative location of the object of interest to the anchor node.
The method as recited in claim 15 , wherein the determination of at least one of a horizontal and vertical rotational value associated with the relative location of the object of interest to the anchor node facilitates rotation of the laser pointer device, using the at least one of the horizontal and vertical rotational value as determined.
The method as recited in claim 15 , wherein the determination of at least one of a horizontal and vertical rotational value is further based on an absolute location of the object of interest in the world map representation using a first (x,y,z) coordinate value and an absolute location of the anchor device using a second (x,y,z) coordinate value.
The method as recited in claim 17 , wherein the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment comprise one or more of 2D user trajectories, wall boundaries and 3D points of interest (POI).
The method as recited in claim 18 , wherein the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment further comprise underlying point cloud information that comprises 3D coordinates of feature points in the bounded physical environment and a visual features based world map, used for re-localization when a change in system status occurs.
The method as recited in claim 12 , wherein the world map representation is further based on augmented reality in displaying labels on real world images associated with the bounded physical environment.
The method as recited in claim 12 , wherein generating the world map representation further comprises registering a series of 3D coordinates associated with objects of interest or points of interest associated with the user device.
The method as recited in claim 12 , wherein generating the world map representation further comprises mapping boundaries associated with a complex bounded physical environment by using acoustic echo signals, in order to refine respective boundaries drawn for the complex bounded physical environment in the world map representation.
A computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processing device, performs operations comprising: creating an initial map comprising unique characteristics associated with a bounded physical environment in response to a request by a user via a computing device; performing object recognition analysis in order to determine labels associated with objects using image recognition processing based at least on a user command to locate one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment; generating a world map representation with editable object tags associated with the one or more objects of interest and the unique characteristics associated with the bounded physical environment; providing navigation instructions to guide the user device to the one or more objects of interest based on a distance analysis of a current location of the user device to a destination location; generating a control signal to the anchor node based on an angle analysis associated with the destination location and the object of interest location; processing the control signal using the anchor node to facilitate rotation of at least one laser pointer device in one or more of an (x,y,z) coordinate-based directional angle; and generating a laser signal that targets the one or more objects of interest for expedient determination of the one or more coordinate points of interest (POI) associated with the one or more objects of interest and respective location.
The computer readable medium as recited in claim 23 , wherein the user command is transmitted using one or more of selection of the object of interest via a user interface selection menu and a voice command.
The computer readable medium as recited in claim 23 , wherein the method implements interpretation of the voice command in order to transmit a control signal to the anchor node.
The computer readable medium as recited in claim 25 , wherein generating the control signal sent to the anchor node based on an angle analysis further comprises a determination of at least one of a horizontal and vertical rotational value associated with the relative location of the object of interest to the anchor node.
Ref US20200387709A1: Claims:
- 19 . (canceled)
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: identifying a target object, from a plurality of objects, which is within a field of view of a first user based
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
identifying a target object, from a plurality of objects, which is within a field of view of a first user based
on a determined location and orientation of the first user relative to respective predefined locations of at least some of the plurality of objects; and generating a command signal configured to trigger a corresponding action associated with the target object.
generating a command signal configured to trigger a corresponding action associated with the target object.
The apparatus of claim 20 , wherein one or more of the plurality of objects has a respective interaction zone within which the first user is able to interact with the object, and wherein the target object is identified based on the determined location of the first user relative to the respective interaction zones of the one or more of the plurality of objects.
The apparatus of claim 20 , wherein the determined orientation comprises one or more of the first user's head, body and eyes.
The apparatus of claim 20 , wherein location and orientation data of the first user are received from one or more objects external to the apparatus.
The apparatus of claim 20 , wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to further perform: generating the command signal automatically on identification of the target object or in response to a user input received from the first user.
The apparatus of claim 24 , wherein the user input is a touch input, a gesture input or a voice input received from the first user.
The apparatus of claim 20 , wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to further perform: accessing a list of actions for one or more of the plurality of objects that can be triggered by the apparatus in response to the corresponding command signals.
The apparatus of claim 20 , wherein the generated command signal is configured to cause the target object to allow one or more further users to interact with the target object according to respective permissions allocated to the one or more further users by the first user or the apparatus.
The apparatus of claim 27 , wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to further perform: allocating the respective permissions to the one or more further users based on at least one of their proximity to the first user, their location and orientation relative to the location of the target object, and their relationship with the first user.
The apparatus of claim 27 , wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to further perform: identifying the one or more further users based on at least one of location data and a user input associated with each of the further users, and storing the identities of the one or more further users together with their respective permissions and/or interactions with the target object.
The apparatus of claim 29 , wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to further perform: outputting the identities of the identified further users together with their respective permissions and/or interactions with the target object, or sending the identities of the identified further users together with their respective permissions and/or interactions with the target object to a device associated with the first user for output.
The apparatus of claim 20 , wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to further perform: receiving the respective predefined locations of the one or more of the plurality of objects from said one or more objects or a central device.
The apparatus of claim 20 , wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to further perform: identifying the target object, from the plurality of objects, which is within the field of view of the first user and within a field of view of a second user, based on a respective determined location and orientation of the first user and the second user relative to respective predefined locations of at least some of the plurality of objects.
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon for performing at least the following: identifying a target object, from a plurality of objects, which is within a field of view of a first user based on a determined location and orientation of the first user relative to respective predefined locations of at least some of the plurality of objects; and generating a command signal configured to trigger a corresponding action associated with the target object.
identifying a target object, from a plurality of objects, which is within a field of view of a first user based on a determined location and orientation of the first user relative to respective predefined locations of at least some of the plurality of objects; and
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 33 , further comprising program instructions stored thereon 
[Truncated to input limit]