AUDI AGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 10, 20212019004997 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/368,065 12/02/2016 Marcus KUEHNE 2319.1224 5548 21171 7590 02/10/2021 STAAS & HALSEY LLP SUITE 700 1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER BOYD, JONATHAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ptomail@s-n-h.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARCUS KUEHNE Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 Technology Center 2600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Audi AG. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to an accurate acquisition of smart glasses’ position in a virtual reality. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A display system, comprising: electronic smart glasses having a display device; a sensor device configured to detect a change in position of the electronic smart glasses as long as the electronic smart glasses are arranged in a detection area of the sensor device; and at least one processor configured to drive the display device of the electronic smart glasses to adapt contents displayed by the display device of the electronic smart glasses to the position of the electronic smart glasses in dependence on the change in position detected by the sensor, and change an alignment of the sensor device in correspondence with the change in position of the electronic smart glasses and thereby cause the detection area of the sensor device to follow the change in position of the electronic smart glasses. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lemelson US 2002/0105482 A1 Aug. 8, 2002 Curry US 2010/0026809 A1 Feb. 4, 2010 Latta US 2013/0326364 A1 Dec. 5, 2013 Osman US 2014/0361976 A1 Dec. 11, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Latta and Lemelson. Final Act. 7–11. Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 3 Claims 2, 3, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Latta, Lemelson, and Curry. Final Act. 11–12. Claims 4–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Latta, Lemelson, Curry, and Osman. Final Act. 12–14. Claims 9, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Latta, Lemelson, and Osman. Final Act. 15–16. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the obviousness rejection of claims 1–15 as a group. See Appeal Br. 3–8. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds Latta teaches or suggests the majority of representative claim 1’s subject matter. Final Act. 7–9. The Examiner finds Lemelson cures Latta’s deficiency and provides a reason for modifying Latta with Lemelson’s teachings. Final Act. 9–10. Appellant contends: (a) the Examiner has not provided evidence that Lemelson’s tracking system is analogous to Latta’s display system; (b) Lemelson does not cure Latta’s deficiency; and (c) there is no reason to combine Lemelson’s different embodiments. Appeal Br. 3; see id. at 3–8; Reply Br. 1–4. We address these contentions in order below. ANALOGOUS ART Appellant notes that, in prior office action responses, Appellant previously asserted Lemelson was not analogous art to Latta. Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 1. The question of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to a reference—i.e., whether a reference is analogous art—asks whether Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 4 the particular reference is analogous to Appellant’s claimed subject matter. More specifically, prior art is analogous art to the claimed invention if either (1) the art is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the art is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added); see also id. at 1325 (explaining that the first test “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.”). On this record, we determine Latta is in the same field of endeavor (even when the field is evaluated narrowly as tracking users with wearable displays for augmented or virtual reality systems) as Appellant’s invention and Lemelson is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem Appellant’s invention addresses (realigning a sensor used to track an object of interest when the object is capable of moving out of the field of view of the sensor). LATTA AND LEMELSON’S TEACHINGS Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds Latta’s capture device 20 teaches or suggests the recited “sensor device configured to detect a change in position of the electronic smart glasses” because device 20 captures movement of the users wearing head mounted display devices 2 that corresponds to the change in position of the smart glasses. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Latta ¶¶ 32, 34, 56–59, 65). The Examiner further finds Latta’s system “drive[s] the display device of the electronic smart glasses to adapt contents display by the display device of the electronic Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 5 smart glasses to the position of the electronic smart glasses in dependence on the change in position detected by the sensor” because Latta’s system uses sensor information, including information captured by capture device 20, to update a scene model that is then used with position feedback data to render images on head mounted display device 2. Final Act. 8 (citing Latta ¶¶ 70, 96, 126, 152, 158). The Examiner finds that Latta’s capture device 20 thus follows the change in position of the smart glasses worn by the users but Latta does not explicitly describe “chang[ing] an alignment of the sensor device in correspondence with the change in position of the electronic smart glasses.” Final Act. 8–9 (citing Latta ¶¶ 32, 70). The Examiner finds Lemelson describes gimbaled sensor system 16 that includes using servos to move sensor 15 to follow a user’s head movement so that “gimbaled sensor system 16 is locked onto the user’s eye 20 by following the 3-D head movement.” Final Act. 9 (quoting Lemelson ¶ 84); see id. (citing Lemelson ¶¶ 61, 77–85, Fig. 1B). Finally, the Examiner concludes representative claim 1 would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide a central sensor system to track and focus on a required body part of the user in accordance with the movement of the user within an area to effectively determine the user location, movement and gesture to render virtual objects to the user, thereby improving processing efficiency of the sensing arrangement. Final Act. 9–10. Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 6 Appellant argues in the Reply Brief2 that “[e]ven if both reference[s] disclose tracking the head of a user, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to either reference to find prior art relevant ‘to detect[ing] a change in position of the electronic smart glasses.’” Reply Br. 2 (quoting representative claim 1, third brackets in original, emphasis added). Appellant also argues Lemelson does not teach or suggest tracking glasses specifically, but instead teaches tracking only “the entire head or tracking the eyes when no glasses are worn.” Reply Br. 2; see id. at 2–4. To the extent Appellant is asserting that Latta does not teach a sensor device configured to detect a change in position of the glasses because Latta teaches tracking the users’ heads instead of the display devices that the users wear on their head, we disagree. Moreover, we note representative claim 1 recites merely that the “sensor device [is] configured to detect a change in position of the electronic smart glasses as long as the electronic smart glasses are arranged in a detection area of the sensor device.” Neither the claims nor the Specification require a particular means or method of how the sensor detects the change in position. More specifically, contrary to certain assertions Appellant makes, representative claim 1 recites detecting a change in position of the glasses, not tracking the glasses. 2 Appellant raises this argument, in part, regarding the alleged difference between Lemelson’s and Latta’s fields of endeavors and problems solved. Even if true, we fail to see how this assertion relates to whether Lemelson and Latta are analogous to Appellant’s claimed invention. We discussed above our determination that Latta and Lemelson are analogous art to Appellant’s claimed invention. Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 7 The Specification describes one exemplary “advantageous embodiment” in which “the sensor device has an infrared sensor which is designed to detect at least one light-emitting diode arranged at the electronic smart glasses.” However, neither the Specification nor the claims limit the type of sensor or require direct sensing of the glasses themselves. In fact, the Specification appears to consider the glasses’ and the person’s positions to be interchangeable. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 23 (describing adapting the observation position within the virtual environment changes “in correspondence with the real change in position of the person 10 in the real detection space 14”). Thus, we construe representative claim 1’s sensor device as including any sensor configured to detect a change in the glasses’ position. One example would include a system having a camera that tracks and records a user wearing such glasses, thereby detecting the changed positions of that user and their glasses. Latta’s capture device 20, which may be a camera that captures “image data from portions of a scene within its” field of view (FOV), teaches the recited sensor. Latta ¶ 32. Latta’s camera captures and tracks users “wearing head mounted display devices 2.” Latta ¶ 34; see id. ¶¶ 56–59; see also Final Act. 7 (finding that Latta’s head mounted display devices teach or suggest the recited “electronic smart glasses having a display device”). Latta then “develop[s] a representative model of each user 18a, 18b, 18c (or others) within the FOV of capture device 20 as each user moves around in the scene.” Latta ¶ 65. By using a camera to track users who are wearing head mounted display devices 2 and modeling users as they move, Latta teaches or suggests a sensor device (i.e., camera) that detects a change in position of the electronic smart glasses (i.e., display device 2) that Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 8 are worn by the users. Accordingly, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding that Latta teaches the recited sensor device. Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief that Lemelson and Latta do not teach the recited limitations does not address the Examiner’s actual findings. More specifically, Appellant asserts that “there was no rationale . . . regarding why one of ordinary skill in the art would use the gimbaled sensor system of Lemelson et al. to modify Latta et al. ‘to adapt contents displayed by the display device . . .’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant further contends “[n]othing has been cited or found in Lemelson et al., including the ‘display 32 is in the shape of glasses that is mounted over the user’s eyes 20’ (paragraph [0064]) illustrated in Fig. 1B, that” adapts displayed content to the position of the smart glasses. Appeal Br. 4. However, the Examiner finds Latta, not Lemelson, teaches a system having a sensor that detects a change in positon of the smart glasses and adapts display contents to the position of the smart glances in dependence on the detected change in position. Although the Examiner relies on Lemelson to teach changing the sensor’s alignment, the Examiner does not find Lemelson teaches adapting the display. Finally, as the Examiner explains, the Examiner finds Latta teaches nearly the entire claimed subject matter and that, to remedy Latta’s deficiency, Lemelson needs to teach or suggest only “detecting the position of the user’s head to align gimbaled sensors.” Ans. 17. Lemelson teaches changing a sensor’s (i.e., camera’s) alignment using pan/tilt servos to follow the user’s head movement to lock on to the object of interest (i.e., a user’s eye). Lemelson ¶¶ 77, 84. Latta already teaches tracking a user wearing smart glasses using capture device 20. E.g., Latta ¶¶ 32, 70. Modifying Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 9 Latta to incorporate Lemelson’s teaching of moving a camera to track the object of interest would have resulted in Latta’s capture device tracking a user wearing smart glasses by adjusting the alignment of the camera in correspondence with the change in position of the smart glasses worn by the user. See Final Act. 9–10 (providing reason to combine Latta and Lemelson). Accordingly, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding that Lemelson teaches or suggests the change an alignment step. COMBINING LEMELSON’S DIFFERENT EMBODIMENTS Finally, Appellant argues the Examiner has not provided a rationale for combining Lemelson’s embodiment depicted in Figure 1B with the embodiment(s) depicted in Figure 1A and/or Figure 1C. Appeal Br. 4–8. As Appellant notes, Lemelson teaches sensing the user’s head as a step in detecting a change in the user’s eye position in order to adjust the camera alignment so that the camera’s focus stays centered on the user’s eye. Appeal Br. 5 (quoting Lemelson ¶ 62). The Examiner’s findings, however, do not rely on combining this teaching with the embodiment depicted in Lemelson’s Figure 1B in which the user wears glasses. As explained in the previous section, to remedy Latta’s deficiency, Lemelson needs to teach or suggest only “detecting the position of the user’s head to align gimbaled sensors.” Ans. 17. The Examiner finds Lemelson’s teaching to align the sensor with the eye by tracking the user’s head because the eye moves when the head moves is equally applicable to tracking smart glasses that move as the user’s head moves. Ans. 17. We agree with the Examiner. Modifying Latta’s system with Lemelson’s ability to align a sensor in correspondence with the user’s eye by tracking the user’s head movement, without any need to combine the Appeal 2019-004997 Application 15/368,065 10 embodiment depicted in Figure 1B, results in a system that senses the user’s head position in order to detect a change in the smart glasses position (rather than the user’s eye) and change Latta’s camera’s alignment in correspondence with that change in positon of the smart glasses worn by the user. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 as obvious over Latta and Lemelson. As discussed above, Appellant does not argue claims 2–15 separately with particularity. See Appeal Br. 2–8. Therefore, for these same reasons, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2–15. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–15 are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed 1, 8, 10, 11, 13 103 Latta, Lemelson 1, 8, 10, 11, 13 2, 3, 14 103 Latta, Lemelson, Curry 2, 3, 14 4–7 103 Latta, Lemelson, Curry, Osman 4–7 9, 12, 15 103 Latta, Lemelson, Osman 9, 12, 15 Overall Outcome 1–15 RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation