Ex Parte MartinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813325358 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/325,358 12/14/2011 42532 7590 06/04/2018 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP ONE INTERNATIONAL PLACE BOSTON, MA 02110 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Martin 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. FID-227 6557 EXAMINER HOANG, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): DocketingPatentBoston @proskauer.com oandrews@proskauer.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID MAR TIN Appeal2016-008309 Application 13/325,358 Technology Center 2600 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's invention generally relates to systems and methods that use a person's physical movements to navigate a representation of that person through a virtual world presentation of customized private information. Spec. 1-2. Claim 13 is illustrative and reproduced on the following page. Appeal2016-008309 Application 13/325,358 13. A method comprising: retrieving by one or more computer systems information from a computer database; analyzing the retrieved information by the one or more computer systems to generate private information of a user pertaining to a customizable presentation that has plural fields for inserting private information; adding by the one or more computers the generated private information into the fields of the customizable presentation according to tags associated with the fields in the customizable presentation to produce a customized presentation; generating by the one or more computer systems an ordered collection of images of the customized presentation, at least some of the images including the generated private information of the user; causing a display device to render a selected one or ones of the generated images of the customized presentation in a virtual world, by: receiving by the one or more computer systems signals that correspond to ambulatory movements of the user in the physical world; processing by the one or more computer systems the signals that correspond to the ambulatory movements of the user the physical world to cause a corresponding ambulatory movement of the user through the virtual world, with the ambulatory movement used to determine at least in part the selected one or more of the ordered generated images corresponding to the user's ambulatory movements in the physical world. REJECTION Claims 1-22 stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious in view of Marshall (US 6,073,115; June 6, 2000) and Van Doom (US 2010/0164990 Al; July 1, 2010). Final Act. 2-11. 2 Appeal2016-008309 Application 13/325,358 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claims 1-22 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Marshall and Van Doom. Final Act. 2-11. Of particular note, the Examiner finds Marshall teaches the ordered collection of images but acknowledges Marshall fails to teach or suggest processing received signals corresponding to real-world ambulatory movements to cause ambulatory movements of a virtual representation of the user. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Van Doom teaches the processing step (i.e., "process[ing] the signals that correspond to the ambulatory movements of the user in the physical world to cause a corresponding ambulatory movement of a virtual representation of the user ... used to determine at least in part the selected one or more of the ordered generated images"), emphasizing the ambulatory movements of the recited processing step. Id. at 4--5 (citing Van Doom ,r,r 30-31). We, therefore, understand the Examiner's rejection as concluding that it would have been obvious to combine Van Doom's disclosed method of navigating its augmented reality (AR) environment with Marshall's ordered collection of images to arrive at Appellant's claimed processing step. The Examiner further finds Van Doom "explicitly us[ es] ambulatory movements in the physical world to navigate a virtual world." Ans. 18-19 (citing Van Doom ,r,r 30-31). Among other arguments, Appellant contends Van Doom does not teach or suggest the processing step, which is recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 18. See App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 11-12. In particular, Appellant asserts Van Doom's disclosure of an Ambient Intelligence environment that includes a user's location triggering a media presentation ( e.g., displaying text when a museum patron walks up to a painting) does not 3 Appeal2016-008309 Application 13/325,358 teach the processing step, which recites traversing images according to a user's ambulatory movements in the physical world that are processed to cause corresponding ambulatory movements of a virtual representation of the user in the virtual world. App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 11-12. Appellant further argues the Examiner has not provided a sufficient explanation of how Van Doom's augmented reality navigation would have been combined with Marshall's teachings to arrive at the recited processing step. App. Br. 18- 19; Reply Br. 11-12. Van Doom is directed to systems and methods involving augmented reality glasses that allow an end-user to program an "Ambient Intelligence environment having a physical dimension such that virtual interaction mechanisms/patterns of the Ambient Intelligence environment are superimposed over real locations, surfaces, objects and devices." Van Doom, Abstract. Van Doom explains that traditional end-user programming techniques (i.e., on a computer screen) do not work well for programming Ambient Intelligence environments, because such environments include a physical dimension. Van Doom's proposed solution uses augmented reality glasses to view and program the Ambient Intelligence environment instead of using "[e]xisting end-user programming techniques" such as visual programming languages, which may include graphical user interfaces (GUis). Id. ,T,T 3--4. Van Doom describes an exemplary scenario of programming an Ambient Intelligence environment in an art museum. Van Doom iTiT 28-31, Figs. IA, 11. With respect to its art museum example, Van Doom discloses the ability of a curator to add virtual elements to the Ambient Intelligence environment via menus presented in the curator's field of view when using 4 Appeal2016-008309 Application 13/325,358 augmented reality glasses. Id. ,r 31. One example disclosed involves the curator setting an area that triggers a media object by walking around the physical, real-world area. Id. Van Doom further discloses a museum patron walking through the museum programmed as an Ambient Intelligence environment and, as she walks up to a painting, "text appears in a display next to the painting that shows many details of the painting." Id. ,r 30, Fig. 1. Accordingly, Van Doom's virtual environment is disclosed as being part of the programming mode. Id. ,r 6 ("when the end-user programmer is not wearing the augmented reality (AR) glasses 131, like all other end-users of an Ambient Intelligence environment, the end-user is said to be in the 'read' mode because the relationships are no longer 'visible' and only their effects can be experienced"); see id. ,r,r 5, 28-31. When the end-user programmer wears the augmented reality glasses, the user is in a "write" mode or programming mode, in which the end-user programmer can alter the ambient narrative by changing ways that users will trigger aspects of the Ambient Intelligence environment. See Van Doom ,r,r 8-11, 34--35, 55, 57----62. When editing the elements of the ambient narrative, Van Doom discloses GUis that may be displayed in the field of view of the end-user programmer wearing the augmented reality glasses. Id. ,r 56. Van Doom further discloses that a user may navigate these GUis using "gestures, head nods, and other body movements as directions to scroll the display in the field-of-view 132 of the AR glasses 131 a user is wearing." Id. Van Doom is directed to a new method for programming Ambient Intelligence environments. The disclosed Ambient Intelligence environment is a physical, real-world environment that includes triggers based on certain 5 Appeal2016-008309 Application 13/325,358 user actions with physical space. Van Doom's "write," or programming, mode is directed to an augmented reality (AR) system, wherein a user wearing AR glasses may alter features of the Ambient Intelligence environment. Van Doom discloses using ambulatory movements (e.g., "gestures, head nods, and other body movements," Van Doom ,r 56) to maneuver through virtual menus. However, even to the extent we correctly understand the Examiner's proposed rationale to be simply substituting Van Doom's known navigation method for Marshall's navigation method to yield predictable results, Van Doom does not teach or suggest "signals that correspond to ambulatory movements of the user in the physical world ... cause a corresponding ambulatory movement of a virtual representation of the user," as recited in Appellant's claims. Because Van Doom is directed to an augmented reality system, which is a combination of the real-world and virtual elements, rather than an entirely virtual reality system, Van Doom uses a different navigation technique than what is recited in Appellant's claims. Specifically, Van Doom fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a virtual representation of the user in the virtual world. Accordingly, even in Van Doom's programming mode, the user moves around the physical, real-world environment, and the user's "ambulatory movements" do not correspond to any movements of a virtual representation of the user in the virtual world. Therefore, Van Doom fails to teach or suggest processing ambulatory movement signals from a user in the physical world to cause corresponding ambulatory movement of a virtual representation of a user in the virtual world, as recited in the processing step of Appellant's claims. 6 Appeal2016-008309 Application 13/325,358 Constrained by this record and for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Marshall and Van Doom teaches or suggests the processing step, as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 18. Because our determination is dispositive of this appeal, we do not address Appellant's other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 18. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-12, 14--17, and 19-22, which depend from claims 1, 13, and 18, respectively. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation