Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2022-12-22)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:

1\. 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:
receive input from the camera;
based on the input, recognize one or more aspects related to a geographic location; and
based on the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location, permit use of the device.

2\. The device of Claim 1, wherein the device comprises an augmented reality (AR) headset.

3\. The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
permit use of the device at least in part by logging a user in to the device.

4\. The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
based on the recognition of the one or more aspects, authenticate the geographic location; and
based on the authentication of the geographic location, permit use of the device.

5\. The device of Claim 1, wherein the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location is used as one factor as part of two-factor authentication executed by the device to permit use of the device.

6\. The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more aspects that are recognized comprise one or more registered geometric shapes that have already been associated with the geographic location.

7\. The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more aspects that are recognized comprise one or more registered objects associated with the geographic location.

8\. The device of Claim 7, wherein the one or more registered objects were registered during a location registration process and prior to receipt of the input from the camera.

9\. The device of Claim 8, wherein registration data for the one or more registered objects that is generated during the location registration process is stored locally at the device prior to receipt of the input from the camera so that the one or more registered objects are recognizable as matching the registration data based on the input from the camera while the device does not have a network connection.
10\. The device of Claim 1, wherein the device is configured for use in recognized geographic locations and for refusing use in non-recognized geographic locations.

11\. The device of Claim 1, wherein the geographic location comprises a particular room of a building, the particular room being registered for allowing device use while the device is in the particular room, the particular room being registered prior to receipt of the input from the camera.

12\. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a device, input from a camera;
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\. The method of Claim 12, wherein the device comprises an augmented reality headset.

14\. The method of Claim 12, comprising:
receiving user input of a password or personal identification number (PIN);
authenticating a user based on receipt of the password or PIN; and
permitting use of the device based on the authenticating of the user and based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location.

15\. The method of Claim 12, comprising:
receiving biometric input from a user;
authenticating the user based on receipt of the biometric input; and
permitting use of the device based on the authenticating of the user and based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location.

16\. The method of Claim 12, comprising:
based on the input, using the device to recognize at least two different objects at the particular location as already being recognized by the device in a previous instance;
and based on the recognition of the at least two different objects at the particular location as already being recognized by the device in the previous instance, permitting use of the device.

17\. The method of Claim 16, wherein the previous instance occurred during a registration process to register the device for permitting device use while the device is, in the future, at the particular location.

18\. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium (CRSM) that is not a transitory signal, the computer readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by at least one processor to: receive input from a camera;
based on the input, recognize a particular location; and
based on the recognition of the particular location, permit use of a device.

19\. The apparatus of Claim 18, comprising the device, wherein the device is a device that presents augmented reality images, and wherein the device is configured for use in recognized locations and for refusing use in non-recognized locations.

20\. The apparatus of Claim 19, wherein the device is a smartphone or other mobile device. 26 27 28 29 30 1201-378 1201-378

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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 14, Line 1, “The method of Claim 12, comprising:” should read “The method of Claim 12, further comprising:”
In Claim 15, Line 1, “The method of Claim 12, comprising:” should read “The method of Claim 12, further comprising:”
In Claim 16, Line 1, “The method of Claim 12, comprising:” should read “The method of Claim 12, further comprising:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 18-20 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):
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);
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);
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 2, Wright as modified by Cudak teaches The device of Claim 1, wherein the device comprises an augmented reality (AR) headset (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 an augmented reality (AR) headset).
Regarding claim 3, Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
permit use of the device at least in part by logging a user in to the device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “…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”, which is analogous to permitting use of the device at least in part by logging a user in to 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, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device at least in part by logging a user in to the device, 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 at least in part by logging a user in to the device. This allows for better security management by only allowing use of the device when the user is logged into the device. This prevents unauthorized users from using the device prior to being authenticated and logging into the device. Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of permitting use of the device at least in part by logging a user in to the device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Wright teaches The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
based on the recognition of the one or more aspects, authenticate the geographic location (Wright, Paragraph [0042], see “At block 420, the processor can attempt to match the extracted visual features to records of objects stored in the object database. This may include the processor accessing the object database and locating a record in the database that matches the extracted visual features. In response to the visual features matching one of the records stored in the object database, the processor may highlight the object on the display or otherwise indicate to the user that an object has been detected and identified”, where “the processor may highlight the object on the display or otherwise indicate to the user that an object has been detected and identified” is being read as based on the recognition of the one or more aspects, authenticate the geographic location, due to the visual features of the object including geo-location data);
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: based on the authentication of the geographic location, permit use of the device (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “…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…the method may restore normal use of the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location”, where “in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location” is analogous to authentication of the geographic location, and based on the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location, the method may restore normal use of the electronic device (i.e., 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, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of permitting use of the device based on the authentication of 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 matching (i.e., authenticating) the location of the electronic device to a predetermined home location in order to permit use of the device. 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 6, Wright as modified by Cudak teaches The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more aspects that are recognized comprise one or more registered geometric shapes that have already been associated with the geographic location (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “At block 415, 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 information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include: the two-dimensional (2D) and/or three-dimensional (3D) shape of the object…CAD-model based data (e.g., shapes and/or features of the object that may be matched to a CAD-model of the object…”, where “CAD-model based data (e.g., shapes and/or features of the object that may be matched to a CAD-model of the object” is being read as the one or more aspects that are recognized comprising one or more registered geometric shapes that have already been associated with the geographic location, due to the CAD-model of the object being registered and associated with the particular object prior to receiving input from the camera) (Wright, Paragraph [0040], see “…The processor may extract one or more of the visual features in order to use more than one type of visual feature in matching the object to record in the object database…”, where “extract one or more of the visual features in order to use more than one type of visual feature in matching the object” is being read as associated the registered shape with the geographic location).
Regarding claim 7, Wright as modified by Cudak teaches The device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more aspects that are recognized comprise one or more registered objects associated with the geographic location (Wright, Paragraph [0039], see “…The visual features may be any aspect of the object that can be extracted based on information in the image(s) captured by the camera. This may include…CAD-model based data (e.g., shapes and/or features of the object that may be matched to a CAD-model of the object), geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where “CAD-model of the object” is being read as comprising one or more registered objects associated with a geographic location, due to Wright, Paragraph [0040], disclosing “…The processor may extract one or more of the visual features in order to use more than one type of visual feature in matching the object to record in the object database”, where “record in the object database” comprises the one or more registered objects).
Regarding claim 8, Wright as modified by Cudak teaches The device of Claim 7, wherein the one or more registered objects were registered during a location registration process and prior to receipt of the input from the camera (Wright, FIG. 4, see “405”, “410”, “415”, “420”, where the objects have already been registered in an object database, due to the method matching the extracted features to records stored in object database in step “420”. Therefore, the one or more registered objects were registered during a registration process prior to receipt of the input from the camera, that way, the system can receive the input from the camera and match the input with the registered information in the database) (Wright, Paragraph [0006], see “…The method may involve capturing a first image of at least a portion of an object with a first device; accessing a first database having a plurality of records storing characteristic data for identifying objects based on captured images…”, where “accessing a first database having a plurality of records storing characteristic data for identifying objects…” is being read as the one or more objects being registered prior to receipt of the input from the camera).
Regarding claim 9, Wright as modified by Cudak teaches The device of Claim 8, wherein registration data for the one or more registered objects that is generated during the location registration process is stored locally at the device prior to receipt of the input from the camera so that the one or more registered objects are recognizable as matching the registration data based on the input from the camera while the device does not have a network connection (Wright, Paragraph [0040], see “…the extracted visual features can be characteristic data that can be used to identify the object based on matching the characteristic data to a record of an object stored in an object database. The object database can be stored locally on the electronic device or may be stored on a remote server accessed over a network such as the Internet (also referring to as being stored in the “cloud”). The processor may extract one or more of the visual features in order to use more than one type of visual feature in matching the object to a record in the object database…”, where “object database” is being read as the database for storing registration data for the one or more registered objects that are generated during the registration process and is stored locally at the device prior to receipt of the input from the camera so that the one or more registered objects are recognizable as matching the registration data (i.e., record in the object database) based on the input from the camera. The idea of the object database being stored locally, as opposed to being stored on a remote server accessed over a network is being read as the one or more registered objects being recognizable as matching the registration data based on the input from the camera while the device does not have a network connection).
Regarding claim 10, Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: The device of Claim 1, wherein the device is configured for use in recognized geographic locations and for refusing use in non-recognized geographic locations (Cudak, Paragraph [0011], see “…The method further comprises monitoring the location of the electronic device, comparing the location of the electronic device to the itinerary, and restricting use of the electronic device in response to determining that the location of the electronic device at the current time does not match the destination specified in the itinerary for the time period that includes the current time”, where “restricting use of the electronic device in response to determining that the location of the electronic device at the current time does not match the destination specified in the itinerary…” is analogous to the device being refused use in non-recognized geographic locations) (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “The use of the electronic device may be restricted in various manners, such as powering off or preventing power up of the electronic device, preventing login attempts, preventing use of one or more applications or functions of the electronic device…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 the device being configured for use in recognized geographic locations, where “home location” is analogous to the recognized geographic location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of the device being configured to use in recognized geographic locations and for refusing use in non-recognized geographic locations, 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 the device being configured to use in recognized geographic locations and for refusing use in non-recognized geographic locations. This allows for better security management by permitting use of a device based on predetermined geographic locations, whilst refusing (restricting) use of a device when the user is not deemed to be within the geographic location. This allows for the use of the device to only be permitted when in designated and authorized areas, as opposed to restricted areas. Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the device being configured to use in recognized geographic locations and for refusing use in non-recognized geographic locations (Cudak, Paragraph [0011] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Wright teaches A method, comprising:
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. At block 410, the processor recognizes the object from the captured image(s). That is, the processor may recognize that the captured image includes an object which can be identified from an object database”, 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 at a device, where “processor” is being read as comprising the device receiving input from a camera);
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 13, Wright as modified by Cudak teaches The method of Claim 12, wherein the device comprises an augmented reality headset (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 an augmented reality (AR) headset).
Regarding claim 18, Wright teaches An apparatus (Wright, Paragraph [0163], see “…the AR or VR system may include a device for each user (e.g. a mobile device like a tablet or mobile phone, a head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device, desktop PC, or laptop)”, where “head worn device like Google Glass or any other head mounted device” is being read as the device), comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium (CSRM) that is not a transitory signal, the computer readable storage medium comprising instructions 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 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 a particular location);
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: based on the recognition 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 19, Wright teaches The apparatus of Claim 18, comprising the device, wherein the device is a device that presents augmented reality images (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 an augmented reality (AR) headset), which entails that the device presents augmented reality images),
Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Cudak: wherein the device is configured for use in recognized locations and for refusing use in non-recognized locations (Cudak, Paragraph [0011], see “…The method further comprises monitoring the location of the electronic device, comparing the location of the electronic device to the itinerary, and restricting use of the electronic device in response to determining that the location of the electronic device at the current time does not match the destination specified in the itinerary for the time period that includes the current time”, where “restricting use of the electronic device in response to determining that the location of the electronic device at the current time does not match the destination specified in the itinerary…” is analogous to the device being refused use in non-recognized geographic locations) (Cudak, Paragraph [0015], see “The use of the electronic device may be restricted in various manners, such as powering off or preventing power up of the electronic device, preventing login attempts, preventing use of one or more applications or functions of the electronic device…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 the device being configured for use in recognized geographic locations, where “home location” is analogous to the recognized geographic location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for use of coordinated local user devices during a shared augmented reality session, disclosed of Wright, by implementing techniques for securing a mobile device, comprising of the device being configured to use in recognized geographic locations and for refusing use in non-recognized geographic locations, 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 the device being configured to use in recognized geographic locations and for refusing use in non-recognized geographic locations. This allows for better security management by permitting use of a device based on predetermined geographic locations, whilst refusing (restricting) use of a device when the user is not deemed to be within the geographic location. This allows for the use of the device to only be permitted when in designated and authorized areas, as opposed to restricted areas. Cudak is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the device being configured to use in recognized geographic locations and for refusing use in non-recognized geographic locations (Cudak, Paragraph [0011] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 20, Wright as modified by Cudak teaches The apparatus of Claim 19, wherein the device is a smartphone or other mobile device (Wright, Paragraph [0022], see “…the local user may hold or wear a device that integrates a camera and a display system (e.g., hand-held tablet, mobile device, digital eyewear, or other hardware with a camera), which is used to both sense the environment and display visual/spatial feedback from the remote user correctly registered to the real world”).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of PINSKI et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2015/0106900), hereinafter Pinski.
Regarding claim 5, Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Pinski: The device of Claim 1, wherein the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location is used as one factor as part of two-factor authentication executed by the device to permit use of the device (Pinski, Paragraph [0019], see “…when an end user attempts to log in to an application executing on application server 120 using mobile device 110, mobile device 110 transmits login credentials to application server 120”, which is analogous to the authentication process being executed by the device (i.e., mobile device) to permit use of the device (with the application server)) (Pinski, Paragraph [0037], see “Method 300 begins at step 310, where mobile device 110 transmits a user ID and password to an application server…”, where “user ID and password” is analogous to comprising one factor of a multi-factor authentication to permit use of the device with the server) (Pinski, Paragraph [0039], see “At step 340, mobile device 110 determines geographic coordinates that correspond to the location of mobile device 110…”, where “geographic coordinates” is analogous to comprising one (or a second) factor of a multi-factor authentication to permit use of the device) (Pinski, Paragraph [0041], see “…Mobile device 110 encrypts and transmits both of these data items to enable device identification server 130 to verify both the session ID and the geographic coordinates…”, where “session ID” corresponds to the username and password provided by the mobile device and where “geographic coordinates” is analogous to being used as one factor as part of a multi-factor authentication executed 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques for mobile network-based multi-factor authentication, comprising of the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location being used as one factor as part of two-factor authentication executed by the device to permit use of the device, disclosed of Pinski.
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 recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location being used as one factor as part of two-factor authentication executed by the device to permit use of the device. This allows for better security management by utilizing two-factor authentication which ultimately provides stronger security aspects by reducing fraud within the system. Although Pinski teaches the concepts of multi-factor authentication, it would be obvious to decrease or increase the number of factors in order to permit use of the device. Pinski is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the recognition of the one or more aspects related to the geographic location being used as one factor as part of two-factor authentication executed by the device to permit use of the device (Pinski, Paragraphs [0037 – 0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Pinski: The method of Claim 12, comprising:
receiving user input of a password or personal identification number (PIN) (Pinski, Paragraph [0037], see “Method 300 begins at step 310, where mobile device 110 transmits a user ID and password to an application server…”, where “mobile device 110 transmits a user ID and password” is analogous to receiving user input of a password);
authenticating a user based on receipt of the password or PIN (Pinski, Paragraph [0021], see “After receiving the login credentials, application server 120 validates those credentials against the credentials (i.e., user ID, password, and device ID) previously stored in registry 125”, where “application server 120 validates those credentials against the credentials (i.e., user ID, password, and device ID) previously stored in registry 125” is analogous to authenticating a user based on receipt of the password); and
permitting use of the device based on the authenticating of the user and based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location (Pinski, Paragraph [0041], see “Having received and decrypted the transaction key, mobile device 110 then encrypts the geographic coordinates using the transaction key. Further, mobile device 110 also encrypts the session ID using the transaction key. Mobile device 110 then transmits, at step 370, the encrypted geographic coordinates and session ID to device identification server 130. Mobile device 110 encrypts and transmits both of these data items to enable device identification server 130 to verify both the session ID and the geographic coordinates…”, where “enable device identification server 130 to verify both the session ID and the geographic coordinates” is analogous to authenticating the user based on their inputted password (i.e., session ID) and one or more elements related to the particular location) (Pinski, Paragraph [0042], see “At step 380, mobile device 110 receives authorization to log in from application server 120…”, where the use of the device is permitted (i.e., authorized to log in) based on the authentication of the user (i.e., password) and based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location (i.e., geographic coordinates)).
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 mobile network-based multi-factor authentication, comprising of receiving user input of a password, authenticating the user based on their password and permitting use of the device based on the authentication of the password and recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, disclosed of Pinski.
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 receiving user input of a password, authenticating the user based on their password and permitting use of the device based on the authentication of the password and recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location. This allows for better security management by utilizing two-factor authentication which ultimately provides stronger security aspects by reducing fraud within the system. That way, a user needs to complete multiple stages of authentication before being permitted usage of their device. Pinski is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of receiving user input of a password, authenticating the user based on their password and permitting use of the device based on the authentication of the password and recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location (Pinski, Paragraphs [0041 – 0042]).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of Zampini, II et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2019/0132815), hereinafter Zampini.
Regarding claim 11, Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Zampini: The device of Claim 1, wherein the geographic location comprises a particular room of a building (Zampini, Paragraph [0295], see “…a predetermined location, such as an office, meeting room, conference room, cubicle or other location can have a display device and a sensor”, where “a predetermined location, such as an office, meeting room…” is analogous to the geographic location comprising a particular room of a building), the particular room being registered for allowing device use while the device is in the particular room (Zampini, Paragraph [0264], see “…server 1810 maintains the state of the beacon (or sensors) 1802 (and thus the state of the meeting rooms) and is thus able to report this status of these rooms…”) (Zampini, Paragraph [0265], see “As the user Departs Desk 1 and takes their mobile device 1806 to Meeting room 2 a few things happen. The first is that the server 1810 determine that Desk 1 remains registered to the user…”, where “server 1810 determines that Desk 1 remains registered to the user” is analogous to the particular rooms being registered for allowing device use while the device is in the particular room) (Zampini, Paragraph [0291], see “…the display device or a server can apply an authentication policy. The display device (or server) can determine whether the mobile device is authorized to be present at the predetermined location or interact or use the display device at the predetermined location…”, where “The display device (or server) can determine whether the mobile device is authorized to be present at the predetermined location” is analogous to the predetermined location (i.e., particular room) being registered for allowing device use while the device is in the particular room), the particular room being registered prior to receipt of the input from the camera (Zampini, Paragraph [0290], see “…The mobile device can transmit unique user data. Unique user data can include, for example, an identifier of the user, username, name, or login information…The unique user data can include a unique identifier. The data may be unique to the location, unique to the entity, unique to an office, unique to a geographic area…”, where “unique user data” is analogous to the input received from the camera (i.e., mobile device)) (Zampini, Paragraph [0291], see “…the display device or a server can apply an authentication policy. The display device (or server) can determine whether the mobile device is authorized to be present at the predetermined location or interact or use the display device at the predetermined location. The display device can have a built-in authentication module or authenticator, or the display device can communicate with a server that includes the authentication module or authenticator. The display device or server can perform the authentication using the unique user data, or other authentication credentials…”, where the server maintains a database of rooms/desks registered to the users’ mobile device. After receiving the unique user data (i.e., input from the mobile device), the display device (or server) can determine whether the mobile device is authorized to be present at the predetermined location or interact or use the display device at the predetermined location. Hence, the predetermined location (i.e., particular room) is registered and maintained in server 1810 prior to receiving the input from the mobile 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 beacon integrated with displays, comprising of the geographic location comprising a particular room of a building, the particular room being registered for allowing device use while the device is in the particular room, the particular room being registered prior to receipt of the input from the mobile device, disclosed of Zampini.
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 geographic location comprising a particular room of a building, the particular room being registered for allowing device use while the device is in the particular room, the particular room being registered prior to receipt of the input from the mobile device. This allows for better security management and a more organized method for permitting device use based on location information by associating the permissions of using a device with respect to a registered room. In cases where the room is hosting a conference meeting, only the device permitted for use with the registered conference room will be allowed to manipulate peripheral devices (i.e., display device). This ensures that user devices within the building premises that are not registered to the conference room, cannot use their mobile devices to connect to and access sensitive data. Zampini is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the geographic location comprising a particular room of a building, the particular room being registered for allowing device use while the device is in the particular room, the particular room being registered prior to receipt of the input from the mobile device (Zampini, Paragraph [0290 – 0291]).
Regarding claim 15, Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Zampini: The method of Claim 12, comprising:
receiving biometric input from a user (Zampini, Paragraph [0290], see “…The mobile device can transmit unique user data…The unique user data can include a unique identifier. The data may be unique to the location, unique to the entity…unique to a type of user, or universally or globally unique”) (Zampini, Paragraph [0291], see “…The display device or server can perform the authentication using the unique user data, or other authentication credentials…In some cases, authentication can be performed using a password, fingerprint, biometric information, audio fingerprint, or voice authentication”);
authenticating the user based on receipt of the biometric input (Zampini, Paragraph [0291], see “…The display device or server can perform the authentication using the unique user data, or other authentication credentials…In some cases, authentication can be performed using a password, fingerprint, biometric information, audio fingerprint, or voice authentication”); and
permitting use of the device based on the authenticating of the user and based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location (Zampini, Paragraph [0291], see “At 1908, the display device or server can apply an authentication policy. The display device (or server) can determine whether the mobile device is authorized to be present at the predetermined location or interact or use the display device at the predetermined location…authentication can be performed using a password, fingerprint, biometric information…”, where “The display device (or server) can determine whether the mobile device is authorized to be present at the predetermined location or interact or use the display device at the predetermined location” is analogous to determining whether to permit use of the mobile device based on the recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, where “display device” is analogous to the one or more elements related to the particular location. The method permits use of the device based on the authenticating of the user (i.e., using biometric information) and based on the recognition of the one or more elements (display device) related to the particular location. Each display device is established at a predetermined location of a plurality of predetermined locations. Therefore, each display device is analogous to one or more elements related to 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, and techniques disclosed of Cudak, by implementing techniques for beacon integrated with displays, comprising of receiving biometric input from a user, authenticating the user based on their biometric input and permitting use of the device based on the authentication of their biometric information and recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location, disclosed of Zampini.
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 receiving biometric input from a user, authenticating the user based on their biometric input and permitting use of the device based on the authentication of their biometric information and recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location. This allows for better security management by utilizing two-factor authentication which ultimately provides stronger security aspects by reducing fraud within the system. That way, a user needs to complete multiple stages of authentication before being permitted usage of the device. Zampini is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of receiving biometric input from a user, authenticating the user based on their biometric input and permitting use of the device based on the authentication of their biometric information and recognition of the one or more elements related to the particular location (Zampini, Paragraphs [0290 – 0291]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, in view of Cudak, in further view of RAJAPPA et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2016/0275352), hereinafter Rajappa.
Regarding claim 16, Wright as modified by Cudak teaches The method of Claim 12, comprising:
based on the input, using the device to recognize at least two different objects at the particular location as already being recognized by the device in a previous instance (Wright, Paragraph [0038], see “The identification of an object may also include identifying a plurality of objects to be matched with a record in the object database…a plurality of objects may be related in some way such that they may be considered a set of objects that could match a single record in the object database”, where “The identification of an object may also include identifying a plurality of objects to be matched with a record in the object database” is being read as using the device to recognize at least two different objects at the particular location as already being recognized by the device in a previous instance (i.e., match a record in the object database, which was derived in a previous instance)) (Wright, Paragraph [0040], see “…the extracted visual features can be characteristic data that can be used to identify the object based on matching the characteristic data to a record of an object stored in an object database. The object database can be stored locally on the electronic device or may be stored on a remote server accessed over a network such as the Internet (also referring to as being stored in the “cloud”). The processor may extract one or more of the visual features in order to use more than one type of visual feature in matching the object to a record in the object database…”, where “object database” is being read as the database for storing registration data for the at least two different objects that occur in a previous instance); and
based on the recognition of the at least two different objects at the particular location as already being recognized by the device in the previous instance (Wright, Paragraph [0037], see “…When more than object is present in the image(s), each of the objects may be visually identified. The user may select, via a user interface, one or more of the objects to be matched with a record in the object database…”) (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…CAD-model based data, geo-location data (e.g., when the object is located at a unique location), etc.”, where visual features are extracted from the captured at least two different objects and are analyzed at the particular location (e.g., using geo-location data) and captured to objects registered in a database (object database))
Wright as modified by Cudak do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Rajappa: based on the recognition of the at least two different objects at the particular location as already being recognized by the device in the previous instance, permitting use of the device (Rajappa, FIG. 7, see “730”, “770”, “750”, “760”, where steps “730 – 750” show recognition of an object at a particular location as already being recognized by the device in a previous instance, the previous instance being the information that is already stored in the content database and used to identify a match in the future. Step “760” shows that based on the recognition of the object at the particular location as already being recognized by the device in the previous instance (i.e., matching an object in the content database), a signal is transmitted to the user device, where the signal can comprise “instructions on how to operate a device or fix a malfunctioning device that the user is viewing”, as seen in Rajappa, Paragraph [0049], which is analogous to permitting 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 image-recognition-based guidance for network device configuration and other environments, comprising of based on the recognition of an object at a particular location as already being recognized by the device in a previous instance, permit use of the device, disclosed of Rajappa.
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 based on the recognition of an object at a particular location as already being recognized by the device in a previous instance, permit use of the device. Although Rajappa discloses recognition of one object at a particular location and matching it to a registered database for permitting use of a device, it is obvious to add a second object as seen in Wright to the method of Rajappa described above. This allows for a more user-friendly environment by allowing the user to scan an object they are viewing at a particular location, and based on the location and captured image of the device, the device will feed the user information on the object and/or instructions on how to operate the device. In instances where the device is at a museum, the user can initiate the device to view information about an object of interest.  Rajappa is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques for permitting user of a device (i.e., through transmitting instructions on how to use the device to the user) based on recognition of an object scanned at a particular location as already being recognized by the device in a previous instance (Rajappa, FIG. 7).
Additionally, assuming arguendo that Rajappa does not explicitly teach the element of permitting, Cudak clearly teaches the element of permitting. See Cudak, Paragraph [0015], “…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 based on recognizing the particular location of the user device, permitting use (i.e., by allowing the user to login) 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 Rajappa, 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 a particular location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Wright does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Rajappa: The method of Claim 16, wherein the previous instance occurred during a registration process to register the device for permitting device use while the device is, in the future, at the particular location (Rajappa, Paragraph [0014], see “…The first signal may include a captured image of an object and geofencing information of the user device that captured the image of the object. In addition to the geofencing information or in lieu of the geofencing information, other parameters associated with the user or the user device may be included in the first signal. The audiovisual content server may analyze the captured image of the object compare it to a plurality of images of objects stored in a database. The object is then identified by matching the captured image of the object to one of the images stored in the database. To further verify the object, a location of the user device may be calculated based on the received geofencing information”) (Rajappa, Paragraph [0020], see “…The corresponding geofencing area for each object may be stored in content database 118, and used to identify content for the object when a request for content associated with an object is sent to the audiovisual content server 102”, where “The corresponding geofencing area for each object may be stored in content database 118” is analogous to a previous instance of registering and storing the object and its particular location into a content database, which is used to determine whether to allow device use while the device is, in the future, at 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 image-recognition-based guidance for network device configuration and other environments, comprising of the previous instance occurring during a registration process to register the device for permitting device use while the device is, in the future, at the particular location, disclosed of Rajappa.
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 previous instance occurring during a registration process to register the device for permitting device use while the device is, in the future, at the particular location. This allows for better security management by registering respective objects in a particular location in a registration database, for later, verifying the object the user views by matching it to the registered database. This can be beneficial in instances where the device is only permitted to be used in particular locations, and/or where a user is viewing an object that they want more information on (such as in a museum). The device can scan the objects the user is viewing, based on their current location, and permit use of the device if there are location-based restrictions, and/or provide a user-friendly environment for sending information regarding the object at interest back to the user. Rajappa is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques for registering the device with the respective objects of interest based on a particular location of the object, which is later used (in the future), for comparing any subsequent objects by a user device (Rajappa, Paragraph [0014] and [0020]).
Additionally, assuming arguendo that Rajappa does not explicitly teach the element of permitting device use based on location, Cudak clearly teaches the element of permitting device use based on location. See Cudak, Paragraph [0015], “…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 based on recognizing the particular location of the user device, permitting use (i.e., by allowing the user to login) 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 Rajappa, 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 a particular location (Cudak, Paragraph [0015]).
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Remarks
Reconsideration of the above-captioned application is respectfully requested. The fact that Applicant has focused its comments distinguishing the present claims from the applied references and/or countering certain rejections must not be construed as acquiescence in other portions of rejections not specifically addressed.
Support for the amendments to the independent claims, and for new Claims 21-37, may be found in the specification as published at paragraphs 63, 65, and 81.
Without acquiescing in any of them, all pending objections and rejections are moot as they do not apply to any extant claim version.
However, notwithstanding all rejections being moot, Applicant reiterates that it does not agree with or acquiesce in various positions taken in the current rejections that have not been explicitly addressed herein, such as the proffered motivations to combine the references. Accordingly, Applicant preserves the right to address any such positions from the current Office Action specifically and individually in the future, such as in a future appeal if those positions persist and such an appeal becomes necessary.
Thus, although this paper may include alterations to the application or claims, or characterizations of claim scope or references of record, Applicant does not concede that any previously pending claim is not patentable over the references of record. Instead, any alterations or characterizations herein are made to expedite prosecution of the instant application. Applicant preserves the right to pursue additional claims that encompass any subject matter supported by the instant specification, including subject matter that may be found to have been disclaimed in this or
any other related application. With this in mind, no inference is to be drawn from review of this or any related application that Applicant has made any disclaimers or disavowals of any subject matter supported by the instant application. To the extent that any estoppel-driven disclaimers or disavowals of subject matter are considered to have occurred in any prior paper in this or any related application, they are hereby rescinded, and the examiner is invited to reconsider the instant claims in light of the references of record.
The examiner is cordially invited to telephone the undersigned at (619) 338-8075 for any reason which would advance the instant application to allowance.
Respectfully submitted,

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 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.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20200394012A1: Claims:
- 20 . (canceled)
A method of sharing a user interface between first and second mobile devices, the method comprising: receiving a selection of an instructional sequence from a user with the first mobile device; transmitting data indicative of the selected instructional sequence from the first mobile device to the second mobile device; in response to receiving the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence: capturing a first sequence of images with a camera of the second mobile device, detecting an object within the first sequence of images, the detected object being identified by the selected instructional sequence, tracking the object within the first sequence of images, and displaying the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with a display of the second mobile device.
receiving a selection of an instructional sequence from a user with the first mobile device;
transmitting data indicative of the selected instructional sequence from the first mobile device to the second mobile device;
in response to receiving the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence: capturing a first sequence of images with a camera of the second mobile device, detecting an object within the first sequence of images, the detected object being identified by the selected instructional sequence, tracking the object within the first sequence of images, and displaying the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with a display of the second mobile device.
capturing a first sequence of images with a camera of the second mobile device,
detecting an object within the first sequence of images, the detected object being identified by the selected instructional sequence,
tracking the object within the first sequence of images, and
displaying the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with a display of the second mobile device.
The method of claim 21 , wherein the first mobile device comprises a handheld mobile device and the second mobile device comprises a head mounted display.
The method of claim 21 , wherein the first mobile device comprises a touch screen configured to receive input from the user, and wherein the second mobile device comprises an auxiliary input device, different from the touch screen, configured to receive input from the user.
The method of claim 21 , wherein the instructional sequence comprises a set of repair instructions for repairing the object.
The method of claim 21 , further comprising receiving a voice command from the user to navigate the instructional sequence with a microphone of the second mobile device.
The method of claim 21 , further comprising: transmitting data indicative of completion of the instructional sequence from the second mobile device to the first mobile device; and receiving user input related to the completed instructional sequence from the user with the first mobile device.
transmitting data indicative of completion of the instructional sequence from the second mobile device to the first mobile device; and
receiving user input related to the completed instructional sequence from the user with the first mobile device.
The method of claim 21 , further comprising: capturing a second sequence of images with a camera of the first mobile device; detecting the object within the second sequence of images; and displaying a plurality of instructional sequences associated with the detected object with a display of the first mobile device, wherein the selection of the instructional sequence received from the user is in response to displaying the plurality of instructional sequences associated with the detected object.
capturing a second sequence of images with a camera of the first mobile device;
detecting the object within the second sequence of images; and
displaying a plurality of instructional sequences associated with the detected object with a display of the first mobile device,
wherein the selection of the instructional sequence received from the user is in response to displaying the plurality of instructional sequences associated with the detected object.
The method of claim 21 , wherein displaying the instructional sequence comprises: establishing a connection between the second mobile device and a remote individual; receiving, at the second mobile device, at least a portion of the instructional sequence via the connection with the remote individual; and displaying the received portion of the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with the display of the second mobile device.
establishing a connection between the second mobile device and a remote individual;
receiving, at the second mobile device, at least a portion of the instructional sequence via the connection with the remote individual; and
displaying the received portion of the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with the display of the second mobile device.
The method of claim 28 , wherein the received portion of the instructional sequence comprises an annotation anchored to the tracked object.
The method of claim 21 , further comprising: receiving administrative data from the user associated with the selected instructional sequence with the first mobile device prior to transmitting the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence to the second mobile device.
receiving administrative data from the user associated with the selected instructional sequence with the first mobile device prior to transmitting the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence to the second mobile device.
A head mounted display (HMD), comprising: a display configured to display images; a camera; a processor; and a memory in communication with the processor and having stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the processor to: receive data indicative of a selected instructional sequence from a mobile device, the instructional sequence being received at the mobile device based on a user selection, capture a first sequence of images with the camera in response to receiving the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence, detect an object within the first sequence of images, the detected object being identified by the selected instructional sequence, track the object within the first sequence of images, and display the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with the display.
a display configured to display images;
a processor; and
a memory in communication with the processor and having stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the processor to: receive data indicative of a selected instructional sequence from a mobile device, the instructional sequence being received at the mobile device based on a user selection, capture a first sequence of images with the camera in response to receiving the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence, detect an object within the first sequence of images, the detected object being identified by the selected instructional sequence, track the object within the first sequence of images, and display the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with the display.
receive data indicative of a selected instructional sequence from a mobile device, the instructional sequence being received at the mobile device based on a user selection,
capture a first sequence of images with the camera in response to receiving the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence,
detect an object within the first sequence of images, the detected object being identified by the selected instructional sequence,
track the object within the first sequence of images, and
display the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with the display.
The HMD of claim 31 , wherein the mobile device comprises a touch screen configured to receive input from the user, and wherein the HMD comprises an auxiliary input device, different from the touch screen, configured to receive input from the user.
The HMD of claim 31 , wherein the display comprises a semi-transparent display screen configured to display the images in a semi-transparent manner.
The HMD of claim 31 , further comprising a microphone, wherein the memory further has stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the processor to receive a voice command from the user to navigate the instructional sequence with the microphone.
The HMD of claim 31 , wherein the memory further has stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the processor to: establish a connection with a remote individual, receive at least a portion of the instructional sequence via the connection with the remote individual, and display the received portion of the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with the display.
establish a connection with a remote individual,
receive at least a portion of the instructional sequence via the connection with the remote individual, and
display the received portion of the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with the display.
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a head mounted display (HMD) to: receive data indicative of a selected instructional sequence from a mobile device, the instructional sequence being received at the mobile device based on a user selection; capture a first sequence of images with a camera of the HMD in response to receiving the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence; detect an object within the first sequence of images, the detected object being identified by the selected instructional sequence; track the object within the first sequence of images; and display the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with a display of the HMD.
receive data indicative of a selected instructional sequence from a mobile device, the instructional sequence being received at the mobile device based on a user selection;
capture a first sequence of images with a camera of the HMD in response to receiving the data indicative of the selected instructional sequence;
detect an object within the first sequence of images, the detected object being identified by the selected instructional sequence;
track the object within the first sequence of images; and
display the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with a display of the HMD.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 36 , wherein the mobile device comprises a touch screen configured to receive input from the user and wherein the HMD comprises an auxiliary input device, different from the touch screen, configured to receive input from the user.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 36 , wherein the instructional sequence comprises a set of repair instructions for repairing the tracked object.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 36 , further having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the HMD to: receive a voice command from the user to navigate the instructional sequence with a microphone of the HMD.
receive a voice command from the user to navigate the instructional sequence with a microphone of the HMD.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 36 , further having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the HMD to: establish a connection with a remote individual; receive at least a portion of the instructional sequence via the connection with the remote individual; and display the received portion of the instructional sequence overlaid on the first sequence of images with the display.
establish a connection with a remote individual;
receive at least a portion of the instructional sequence via the connection with the remote individual; and
- 60 . (canceled)
Ref US20150358769A1: Claims:
A method, comprising: storing an itinerary in memory of an electronic device, wherein the itinerary includes a plurality of destinations and a time period associated with each destination; monitoring the location of the electronic device; comparing the location of the electronic device to the itinerary; and restricting use of the electronic device in response to determining that the location of the electronic device at the current time does not match the destination specified in the itinerary for the time period that includes the current time.
storing an itinerary in memory of an electronic device, wherein the itinerary includes a plurality of destinations and a time period associated with each destination;
monitoring the location of the electronic device;
comparing the location of the electronic device to the itinerary; and
restricting use of the electronic device in response to determining that the location of the electronic device at the current time does not match the destination specified in the itinerary for the time period that includes the current time.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: receiving the itinerary through manual input from a user.
receiving the itinerary through manual input from a user.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: accessing a calendar that maintains the itinerary.
accessing a calendar that maintains the itinerary.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the time period associated with at least one of the destinations is specified by a length of time.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the time period associated with at least one of the destinations is specified by a calendar date, start time and end time.
The method of claim 1 , wherein monitoring the location of the electronic device includes receiving signals from a global positioning system.
The method of claim 1 , wherein monitoring the location of the electronic device includes detecting wireless network access points.
The method of claim 1 , wherein comparing the location of the electronic device to the itinerary includes comparing the location of the electronic device to the itinerary at regular intervals.
The method of claim 1 , wherein comparing the location of the electronic device to the itinerary includes continuously comparing the location of the electronic device to the itinerary.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the location of the electronic device is determined to match the destination specified in the itinerary for the time period that includes the current time if the location is within a range of distance from the specified destination.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the location of the electronic device is determined to match the destination specified in the itinerary for the time period that includes the current time if the location matches one of the destinations specified in the itinerary within a range of time.
The method of claim 1 , wherein restricting use of the electronic device includes powering off the electronic device.
The method of claim 1 , wherein restricting use of the electronic device includes preventing login attempts.
The method of claim 13 , further comprising: after preventing login attempts, allowing login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location.
after preventing login attempts, allowing login attempts on the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location.
The method of claim 1 , wherein restricting use of the electronic device includes preventing use of one or more applications or functions of the electronic device.
The method of claim 1 , wherein restricting use of the electronic device includes preventing changes to settings.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: restoring normal use of the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location.
restoring normal use of the electronic device in response to the location of the electronic device matching a predetermined home location.
The method of claim 1 , wherein restricting use of the electronic device includes requiring increased authentication in order to use one or more applications or functions of the electronic device.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: the electronic device automatically executing a predetermined task in response to determining that the location of the electronic device at the current time does not match the destination specified in the itinerary for the time period that includes the current time.
the electronic device automatically executing a predetermined task in response to determining that the location of the electronic device at the current time does not match the destination specified in the itinerary for the time period that includes the current time.
The method of claim 19 , wherein the predetermined task is selected from sending a message identifying the location of the electronic device and wiping information from the electronic device.
Ref US20150106900A1: Claims:
A method of authenticating a user logging into a secure account using a mobile device, comprising the steps of: verifying login credentials of the user; verifying a hardware ID of the mobile device; and verifying that a location of the mobile device determined using a global positioning system (GPS) component installed in the mobile device matches a location of a network element with which the mobile device is currently communicating.
verifying login credentials of the user;
verifying a hardware ID of the mobile device; and
verifying that a location of the mobile device determined using a global positioning system (GPS) component installed in the mobile device matches a location of a network element with which the mobile device is currently communicating.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising registering the login credentials of the user with an application server, wherein verification of the login credentials is performed by the application server.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: transmitting, by the mobile device, the hardware ID of the mobile device to an application server; registering, by the application server, the hardware ID in a registry maintained by the application server; and responsive to a login request received from the mobile device, verifying, by the application server, that the hardware ID maintained in the registry matches a hardware ID associated with the login request.
transmitting, by the mobile device, the hardware ID of the mobile device to an application server;
registering, by the application server, the hardware ID in a registry maintained by the application server; and
responsive to a login request received from the mobile device, verifying, by the application server, that the hardware ID maintained in the registry matches a hardware ID associated with the login request.
The method of claim 3 , wherein the application server verifies the hardware ID associated with the login request based on a first network identifier associated with the mobile device.
The method of claim 3 , further comprising: determining, by the mobile device, one or more geographic coordinates corresponding to the location of the mobile device; transmitting, by the mobile device, the one or more geographic coordinates to the device identification server; determining, by the device identification server, the network location corresponding to the network element with which the mobile device is currently communicating, the determining being based on the first network identifier for the mobile device; determining, by the device identification server, whether the one or more geographic coordinates transmitted by the mobile device correspond to the network location determined by the device identification server; and generating, by the device identification server, verification results that 
[Truncated to input limit]