Office Action 2: Final Rejection (2023-04-14)
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; 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; and
based 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: SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.18 7.57
based on the input, recognize geometry of a particular location; and
based on the recognition of the geometry of the particular location, permit use of a device. SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.18 7.57

21\. (new) The apparatus of Claim 18, wherein the geometry that is recognized comprises dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed.

22\. (new) The apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the dimensions comprise height and width of walls of the room.

23\. (new) The apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the dimensions comprise width and length of floors of the room.

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

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

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

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

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

37\. (new) The method of Claim 12, wherein the trigger comprises receipt of audible user input to authenticate a user.
1201-378 AMD

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 3 January 2023:
Claims 1, 12 and 18 are amended.
Claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-37 are added.
Claims 1, 12, 18 and 21-37 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 3 January 2023:
a.	Applicant’s arguments that without acquiescing in any of them, all pending objections and rejections are moot as they do not apply to any extant claim version has been fully considered but is deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
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.
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]).
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 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]).
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
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, 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 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]).
Regarding claim 33, Wright as modified by Cudak 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 21-22, 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 YANKOVICH et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2019/0156582), hereinafter Yankovich.
Regarding claim 21, Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Yankovich: The apparatus of Claim 18, 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).
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 for efficient rendering of 3D models using model placement metadata, comprising of the geometry that is recognized comprises dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed, 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 comprises dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed. 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 comprises dimensions of a room in which the device is disposed (Yankovich, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 22, Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Yankovich: The apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the dimensions comprise 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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).
Regarding claim 25, Wright as modified by Cudak 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 23, 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Yankovich, in further view of Tiwari et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2018/0075168), hereinafter Tiwari.
Regarding claim 23, Wright as modified by Cudak and further modified by Yankovich do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Tiwari: The apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the dimensions comprise 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, 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 27, Wright as modified by Cudak 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, 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]).
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 TODA et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0144393), hereinafter Toda.
Regarding claim 24, Wright as modified by Cudak 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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 Sarir et al. (U.S. Patent 10,929,098), hereinafter Sarir.
Regarding claim 26, Wright as modified by Cudak 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, 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).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, 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 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, 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]).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action.  Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  See MPEP § 706.07(a).  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.

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, and for new Claims 38-40, may be found in the specification at Figure 7 and page 22.
Without acquiescing in any of them, all pending rejections are moot as they do not apply to any extant claim version.
Rej
ection of Claims 24, 28
,
and 35 based on Wright, Cudak, and Toda
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.
Accordingly, should these rejections persist, Applicant requests an evidentiary showing that the relied-upon subject matter of Toda actually has a filing date that predates Applicant's priority date. This would require translations and specific citations to either or both of the two Japanese
references. This is because the proponent of the rejection bears initial burden of making a prima facie case, In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 .
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

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20190156582A1: Claims:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a user input at a wearable device, the user input indicating an interest to add a new real-world item to an environment; computing a geometry of the environment and one or more real-world items located in the environment based on image data captured by the wearable device; retrieving a model corresponding to the new real-world item and metadata defining one or more constraints on a presentation of the model when rendered in a view of the environment; analyzing the geometry of the environment and the one or more real-world items to determine a configuration for the model when rendered in the view of the environment that satisfies the constraints; and displaying a rendering of the model in the view of the environment, the rendering of the model presented according to the configuration.
receiving a user input at a wearable device, the user input indicating an interest to add a new real-world item to an environment;
computing a geometry of the environment and one or more real-world items located in the environment based on image data captured by the wearable device;
retrieving a model corresponding to the new real-world item and metadata defining one or more constraints on a presentation of the model when rendered in a view of the environment;
analyzing the geometry of the environment and the one or more real-world items to determine a configuration for the model when rendered in the view of the environment that satisfies the constraints; and
displaying a rendering of the model in the view of the environment, the rendering of the model presented according to the configuration.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the metadata comprises data specifying how the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment relative to a type of real-world item in the environment.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the metadata comprises data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location within a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the metadata comprises data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the metadata comprises data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a specific type of real-world item in the environment.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the configuration for the model comprises a scale, a location, and an orientation of the model in the view of the environment.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the metadata is defined by a seller of the real-world item.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more constraints comprise preferred constraints or required constraints.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the wearable device comprises an augmented reality (AR) device or a virtual reality (VR) device.
An apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; an optical system; a display device; and a memory in communication with the one or more processors, the memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: compute a geometry of an environment and one or more real-world items located in the environment based on image data captured by the optical system; retrieve a model of a new real-world item and metadata defining one or more constraints on a presentation of the model when rendered in a view of the environment; analyze the geometry of the environment and the one or more real-world items to determine a configuration for the model that satisfies the constraints; and using the configuration to render the model on the display device.
one or more processors;
an optical system;
a display device; and
a memory in communication with the one or more processors, the memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: compute a geometry of an environment and one or more real-world items located in the environment based on image data captured by the optical system; retrieve a model of a new real-world item and metadata defining one or more constraints on a presentation of the model when rendered in a view of the environment; analyze the geometry of the environment and the one or more real-world items to determine a configuration for the model that satisfies the constraints; and using the configuration to render the model on the display device.
compute a geometry of an environment and one or more real-world items located in the environment based on image data captured by the optical system;
retrieve a model of a new real-world item and metadata defining one or more constraints on a presentation of the model when rendered in a view of the environment;
analyze the geometry of the environment and the one or more real-world items to determine a configuration for the model that satisfies the constraints; and
using the configuration to render the model on the display device.
The apparatus of claim 10 , wherein the metadata comprises data specifying how the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment relative to a type of real-world item in the environment.
The apparatus of claim 10 , wherein the metadata comprises data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location within a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment.
The apparatus of claim 10 , wherein the metadata comprises data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment.
The apparatus of claim 10 , wherein the metadata comprises data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a specific type of real-world item in the environment.
The apparatus of claim 10 , wherein the one or more constraints comprise preferred constraints or required constraints.
A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a user input at a wearable device, the user input indicating an interest to add a new real-world item to an environment; computing a geometry of the environment and one or more real-world items located in the environment based on image data captured by the wearable device; retrieving a model corresponding to the new real-world item and metadata defining one or more constraints on a presentation of the model when rendered in a view of the environment, wherein the metadata comprises one or more of data specifying how the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment relative to a type of real-world item in the environment, data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location within a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment, data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment, or data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a specific type of real-world item in the environment; analyzing the geometry of the environment and the one or more real-world items to determine a configuration for the model when rendered in the view of the environment that satisfies the constraints; and rendering the model in the configuration on a display device of the wearable device.
retrieving a model corresponding to the new real-world item and metadata defining one or more constraints on a presentation of the model when rendered in a view of the environment, wherein the metadata comprises one or more of data specifying how the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment relative to a type of real-world item in the environment, data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location within a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment, data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment, or data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a specific type of real-world item in the environment;
data specifying how the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment relative to a type of real-world item in the environment,
data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location within a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment,
data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a geometric boundary of the environment, or
data specifying that the model is to be rendered in the view of the environment at a location outside a threshold distance of a specific type of real-world item in the environment;
rendering the model in the configuration on a display device of the wearable device.
The computer-implemented method of claim 16 , wherein the configuration for the model comprises a scale, a location, and an orientation of the model in the view of the environment.
The computer-implemented method of claim 16 , wherein the metadata is defined by a seller of the real-world item.
The computer-implemented method of claim 16 , wherein the one or more constraints comprise preferred constraints or required constraints.
The computer-implemented method of claim 16 , wherein the wearable device comprises an augmented reality (AR) device or a virtual reality (VR) device.
Ref US20180075168A1: Claims:
A method for capturing building information, comprising: capturing dimensions of a 360 degree image at a first location within a room of a building using a mobile device equipped with at least one distance sensor and at least one movement sensor; repeating the step of capturing dimensions within at least one additional room; and receiving user input to connect the rooms to create a floor plan of the building.
capturing dimensions of a 360 degree image at a first location within a room of a building using a mobile device equipped with at least one distance sensor and at least one movement sensor;
repeating the step of capturing dimensions within at least one additional room; and
receiving user input to connect the rooms to create a floor plan of the building.
The method of claim 1 , wherein capturing dimensions includes capturing a 360 degree panoramic image of floor-to-wall intersections.
The method of claim 1 , wherein capturing dimensions includes auto detecting doors and window frames as shown in the image.
The method of claim 3 , wherein capturing dimensions includes recording the distances, azimuth angles, and direction from the first location to various points of the floor-to-wall intersections.
The method of claim 4 , wherein capturing dimensions includes correcting the distances and angles for errors to produce a two-dimensional image of the room geometry.
The method of claim 2 , wherein capturing dimensions includes: capturing a 360 degree panoramic image of ceiling-to-wall intersection; and aligning the panoramic image of the floor-to-wall intersection with the panoramic image of the ceiling-to-wall intersection to create a three dimensional view of the room.
capturing a 360 degree panoramic image of ceiling-to-wall intersection; and
aligning the panoramic image of the floor-to-wall intersection with the panoramic image of the ceiling-to-wall intersection to create a three dimensional view of the room.
The method of claim 6 , wherein capturing a 360 degree panoramic image of ceiling-to-wall intersection includes measuring the change in angle between the floor-to-wall intersections and the ceiling-to-wall intersections to determine a height of the wall.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the mobile device includes a laser pointer such that capturing dimensions includes measuring the distances from the first location to various points of the floor-to-wall intersections based on the image size of the laser pointer when directed towards the various points of the floor-to-wall intersections.
The method of claim 8 , wherein the sensors include a camera, wherein a view from the camera is limited to only a view showing location of the laser pointer as the laser pointer is directed towards the various points of the floor-to-wall intersections.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the sensors include a camera, gyroscope, a digital compass.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the sensors include a camera, a gyroscope, an accelerometer and a digital compass.
The method of claim 11 , wherein adjacent rooms are identified by digital compass readings associated with room corners.
The method of claim 11 , wherein multiple floors are aligned based on user input or digital compass readings associated with floors.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising creating a building information model by applying measurements taken by environmental sensors of the mobile device with the captured dimensions to include environmental descriptors within the floor plan.
The method of claim 14 , further comprising repeating the step of applying measurements at a second location of the room.
The method of claim 14 , where the location of the mobile device within the room being captured is associated with environmental descriptors measured by the mobile device.
A method for capturing building information, comprising: capturing dimensions of a 360 degree image at a first location within a room of a building using a mobile device equipped with a laser meter; repeating the step of capturing dimensions within at least one additional room; and receiving user input to connect the rooms to create a floor plan of the building.
capturing dimensions of a 360 degree image at a first location within a room of a building using a mobile device equipped with a laser meter;
The method of claim 17 , wherein capturing dimensions includes capturing a 360 degree laser scan such that a projected laser beam falls onto wall surfaces of the room.
The method of claim 17 , wherein capturing dimensions includes continuously adjust the inclination of the mobile device such that projected laser beam falls onto wall surfaces of the room.
The method of claim 17 , wherein the dimensions are captured from multiple locations within the room.
The method of claim 17 , wherein the dimensions are captured from corners of the room.
The method claim 17 , wherein the mobile device also includes a gyroscope and an accelerometer.
A device for planning a security system of a building, comprising: an interactive user interface device to capture building information and user requirements having a visual display and at least one distance sensor and at least one movement sensor; and a processor operatively connected to the user interface having a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions recorded thereon that, when read by the processor, cause the processor to: capture dimensions of a 360 degree image at a first location within a room of a building; repeat the step of capturing dimensions within at least one additional room; and receive user input to connect the rooms to create a floor plan of the building.
an interactive user interface device to capture building information and user requirements having a visual display and at least one distance sensor and at least one movement sensor; and
a processor operatively connected to the user interface having a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions recorded thereon that, when read by the processor, cause the processor to:
capture dimensions of a 360 degree image at a first location within a room of a building;
repeat the step of capturing dimensions within at least one additional room; and
receive user input to connect the rooms to create a floor plan of the building.
Ref US20210144393A1: Claims:
An image capturing device comprising: an imaging device configured to capture an image to obtain captured image data, the captured image data to be distributed in a plurality of streams; and circuitry configured to: determine, for each of the plurality of streams, an encoding method of the captured image data according to an encoding parameter for each stream; perform encode processing on the captured image data concurrently to generate a plurality of items of streaming image data, each encode processing being performed using the encoding method having been determined for each stream; and distribute the plurality of items of streaming image data.
an imaging device configured to capture an image to obtain captured image data, the captured image data to be distributed in a plurality of streams; and
circuitry configured to: determine, for each of the plurality of streams, an encoding method of the captured image data according to an encoding parameter for each stream; perform encode processing on the captured image data concurrently to generate a plurality of items of streaming image data, each encode processing being performed using the encoding method having been determined for each stream; and distribute the plurality of items of streaming image data.
determine, for each of the plurality of streams, an encoding method of the captured image data according to an encoding parameter for each stream;
perform encode processing on the captured image data concurrently to generate a plurality of items of streaming image data, each encode processing being performed using the encoding method having been determined for each stream; and
distribute the plurality of items of streaming image data.
The image capturing device of claim 1 , further comprising: a hardware encoder; and a software encoder, implemented by the circuitry, wherein the encoding method indicates which one of the hardware encoder and the software encoder is used to perform encode processing, and the circuitry determines to use the hardware encoder to perform encode processing for at least one of the plurality of streams with the encoding parameter requiring a high processing load.
a hardware encoder; and
a software encoder, implemented by the circuitry,
wherein the encoding method indicates which one of the hardware encoder and the software encoder is used to perform encode processing, and
the circuitry determines to use the hardware encoder to perform encode processing for at least one of the plurality of streams with the encoding parameter requiring a high processing load.
The image capturing device of claim 2 , wherein the encoding parameter indicates a resolution of the streaming image data, and the circuitry determines to use the hardware encoder to perform encode processing for at least one of the plurality of streams with the encoding parameter requiring a high resolution.
wherein the encoding parameter indicates a resolution of the streaming image data, and
the circuitry determines to use the hardware encoder to perform encode processing for at least one of the plurality of streams with the encoding parameter requiring a high resolution.
The image capturing device of claim 2 , wherein the encoding parameter indicates a frame rate of the streaming image data, and the circuitry determines to use the hardware encoder to perform encode processing for at least one of the plurality of streams with the encoding parameter requiring a high frame rate.
wherein the encoding parameter indicates a frame rate of the streaming image data, and
the circuitr
[Truncated to input limit]