Ex Parte Reponen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2018

14107695 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/107,695 12/16/2013
72165 7590 09/18/2018
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT 004770
1100 13TH STREET
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erika Reponen
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.
004770.02369 9838
EXAMINER
SUTEERAWONGSA, JARURAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2018 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):
PTO-72165@bannerwitcoff.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIKA REPONEN
Appeal2018-003314
Application 14/107 ,695
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JOHN P.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4--21. Claim 3 is cancelled.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies
Oy. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003314
Application 14/107 ,695
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention "relates generally to
causation of capture of visual information indicative of a part of an
environment." Spec ,r 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one memory including computer program code, the
memory and the computer program code configured to, working
with the processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the
following:
determination that a user's attention is directed to at least
part of an environment surrounding the user, the part of the
environment being within a capture region of a camera module
of an electronic apparatus;
determination that the user's attention is directed away
from the part of the environment surrounding the user and
towards a display of the electronic apparatus;
causation of capture of visual information indicative of the
part of the environment to which the user's attention was directed
before the user's attention is directed away from the part of the
environment and towards the display of the electronic apparatus,
based, at least in part, on the determination that the user's
attention is directed away from the part of the environment and
towards the display of the electronic apparatus;
causation of storage of the visual information as at least
part of a video media item;
determination that the attention is directed towards the part
of the environment and away from the display of the electronic
apparatus; and
causation of termination of capture of the visual
information based, at least in part, on the determination that the
user's attention is directed towards the part of the environment
and away from the display of the electronic apparatus.
2
Appeal2018-003314
Application 14/107 ,695
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 4--5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17-19 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Osman (US 2014/0364212 Al;
published Dec. 11, 2014) and Buck (US 2006/0037038 Al; published Feb.
16, 2006 ). Final Act. 2---6.
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Osman, Buck, and Lankford (US 2012/0105486 Al;
published May 3, 2012). Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Osman, Buck, and Lapstun (US 2011/0018903 Al;
published Jan. 27, 2011). Final Act. 7-8.
ANALYSIS
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON OSMAN AND BUCK
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17-19 and 21
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-2, 4--5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21 as
unpatentable over Osman and Buck.
The Examiner's finds that Osman teaches the limitations of claim 1,
except for the causation steps based on detection of the user's attention.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Buck for these features. Id. As the
Examiner explains, Buck expressly teaches recording data of a part of the
environment that the user's attention was directed to before the user's
attention is directed away from that environment. Ans. 2 ( citing Buck ,r,r 8,
16, 32-34, 36, and Fig. 4). Osman also describes detecting a user's attention
away from part of the environment. Id. (citing Osman Fig. 2a, 3G, 4B, and
3
Appeal2018-003314
Application 14/107 ,695
,r,r 24, 77, 83, 89, 121, and 138). The Examiner then relies on Bucks'
general teaching that when a user misses data while gazing away from an
environment, it would be beneficial to provide a system that would improve
awareness of events in the environment when the user is gazing away from
the environment. Final Act. 4; Buck ,r 5.
Appellant asserts that there is no suggestion or motivation to combine
Osman and Buck. App. Br. 7-9. Namely, Appellant argues that Osman
teaches two situations. In the first situation, where a camera captures the
user's environment in line with the user's gaze to show on the screen,
Appellant argues that "incorporating Buck's recording of what the user is
not viewing would have changed the principle of operation of Osman and
rendered Osman unsatisfactory for its intended purpose: capturing what the
user is viewing." Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 9. In the second situation, where the
system lets the user see through a portion of the screen, Appellant contends
that there is no reason to modify Osman in view of Buck. App. Br. 9.
Additionally, Appellant argues that in the combination of Osman and
Buck, there would no need to start recording the surrounding environment.
App. Br. 9-10. Appellant asserts that "Osman's capture of images of the
real world environment is based on gaze pattern shifting within a screen of a
head mount display," while "Buck '[records] data being displayed on a
monitor while the user's eyes are away from that monitor." Reply Br. 5;
App. Br. 10. As such, according to Appellant, in the combination of Osman
and Buck
the gaze of user would have to shift away from the screen of the
head-mount display, as suggested by Buck. As shown in FIGS.
2A and 2B of Osman, the only way that the gaze of user could
shift away from the screen of the head-mount display 104 is to
4
Appeal2018-003314
Application 14/107 ,695
have the user remove the head-mount display 104. Thus, in the
modified Osman in view of Buck, there would have been no need
to start recording the surrounding environment, as alleged by the
Office, because the user would have an unobstructed view of the
surrounding environment after removing the head-mount display
104.
App. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. While
Osman teaches capturing images of the real world environment in view of
the user's gaze, this does not suggest that Osman cannot also capture or
record images from the environment when not in the user's gaze. For
example, Osman disclose multiple cameras. See, e.g., Osman ,r 83 (referring
to plural cameras). Osman may also, for example, capture images at a
different point in time. As such, we disagree that the combination of Osman
with Buck renders Osman unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Similarly, we disagree that there is no suggestion or motivation to
combine Osman with Buck. Osman identifies triggering events, or events
that may trigger a change in transparency mode, including "movement
detected in the immediate surrounding of the user, detecting receipt of a
phone call, text, ping, message, email, detecting action of other users in the
vicinity of the user, such as voice, etc." Osman ,r 121; Ans. 3. As such,
Osman recognizes that a user's interest may vary between a display screen
and the surrounding environment. Buck then teaches that a user may miss
important events when viewing away from an environment and a desirability
to improve awareness of an environment not being viewed by a user. Buck
,r 5; Ans. 3. Based on these combined teachings, as the Examiner explains,
it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify Osman in
view of Buck "to prevent missed data." Final Act. 4; Ans. 3.
5
Appeal2018-003314
Application 14/107 ,695
Likewise unavailing is Appellant's contention that Osman requires
removing the head mount display to gaze away from the display. App. Br.
10; Reply Br. 5. As the Examiner points out, Osman describes viewing
events in the surrounding environment by transitioning from non-transparent
to transparent and back. Ans. 2 ( citing Osman Fig. 2a, 3G, 4B, and ,r,r 24,
89, and 121). As such, Osman, in view of Buck, teaches recording the
surrounding environment when the user shifts from a transparent mode, i.e.
viewing the surrounding environment, back to non-transparent mode, i.e.
viewing the display screen. See, e.g., Ans. 3.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-2, 4--5,
7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21 as unpatentable over Osman and Buck.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 6, 8, 14, 16 and 20
Appellant does not separately argue patentability of claims 6, 8, 14, 16
and 20. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
these claims. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 6,
8, 14, 16, and 20 as unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4--21 as
unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6