Patent Application 17354240 - EYEWEAR DISPLAY SYSTEM AND EYEWEAR DISPLAY METHOD - Rejection
Patent Application 17354240 - EYEWEAR DISPLAY SYSTEM AND EYEWEAR DISPLAY METHOD
Title: EYEWEAR DISPLAY SYSTEM AND EYEWEAR DISPLAY METHOD
Application Information
- Invention Title: EYEWEAR DISPLAY SYSTEM AND EYEWEAR DISPLAY METHOD
- Application Number: 17354240
- Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2021-06-22T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2021-06-22T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 356
- National Sub-Class: 004010
- Examiner Employee Number: 100148
- Art Unit: 3645
- Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
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 Amendment
The following addresses applicantâs remarks/amendments dated January 27, 2025.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome objections to the drawings and specification.
The amendment to claim 7 is sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 were amended. No claims were cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-7 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicantâs arguments, see page 10, filed 1/27/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuett et al., US 10893190 B2 ("Schuett") in view of Ohtomo et al., US 20180052232 A1 ("Ohtomo").
Regarding claim 1, Schuett discloses an eyewear display system comprising:
a scanner (paragraph 16, scanner 110) including a measuring unit configured to irradiate pulsed distance-measuring light and acquire three-dimensional coordinates of an irradiation point by measuring a distance and an angle to the irradiation point (paragraphs 37-38, camera 517 and rangefinder 518, the scope of the latter including the use of LIDAR as described in paragraph 38) and a point cloud data acquiring unit configured to acquire point cloud data as observation data (paragraph 39, point cloud builder logic 527) by rotationally irradiating distance-measuring light in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (paragraph 37, pan motor 512 and tilt motor 515 supporting complete hemispherical coverage) by the measuring unit;
an eyewear device (paragraph 18, the scope of âthe data collector 170 includes a sensor support 171 that may be worn, carried and/or otherwise supported by the operator 180â including apparatuses mounted on the face, or eyewear. The examiner notes that paragraph 0082 of the application accounts for the simplification and reconfiguration of the display unit in accordance with advancements â in the form of performance improvements of constituent hardware, resulting in downsizing that enables component compounding â demonstrating a recognition that mere compression of a claimed apparatus and its constituent elements into a simpler form with unaffected functionality does not constitute a novel invention) including a display (paragraph 18, guidance display 150), a relative position detection sensor configured to detect a position of the device, and a relative direction detection sensor configured to detect a direction of the device (paragraph 19, position and relative direction encompassed by sensors for improving estimate of position and orientation);
a storage device (paragraph 14, notes described modules and/or subroutines being stored in local and/or remote memory storage devices) configured to store an observation route (paragraph 29, block 392 planning a view capture path) calculated in consideration of three-dimensional CAD design data (paragraph 28, encompasses importing a CAD image or environment map during setup) of an observation site and instrument information of the scanner (paragraph 24, the language âall the necessary and/or desirable views that can be supported by the scanner at a particular scan positionâ means view path and thus viewpoint determination is evaluated in considered by the capabilities [âcanâ] of the used scanner, requiring incorporation of the instrument information of the scanner); and
an information processing device (paragraph 13, the claimed invention being embodied in a computer, controller, or data processor, encompassing information processing devices) including a coordinate synchronizing unit configured to synchronize information on a position and a direction of the eyewear device and a coordinate space of the observation route (Fig. 3, Block 388 plan optimal scanner locations, Paragraph 28) and a display control unit configured to control display of the observation route on the display (paragraph 22, designates controller 130 as controlling the guidance information shown on display 150);
wherein the scanner, the eyewear device, the storage device, and the information processing device are capable of inputting and outputting information to each other (paragraph 22, discloses intercommunication of both scanner 110 and guidance display 150 with scanner 110, encompassing communication between the claimed elements) and the eyewear device superimposes and displays the observation route on a landscape of the site (Figure 9, associated with paragraph 49, clearly discloses the superimposition of an observation route on display 150 over a background landscape), wherein
the observation route connects instrument installation points of the scanner arranged so as to cover an entire observation site at a required point cloud density (Fig. 3, Block 388 plan optimal scanner locations, Paragraph 28; Fig. 4, scanner positions P1, P2, P3, P4, Paragraph 35: locations chosen to capture all relevant image data in the environment).
Schuett does not teach: and wherein the instrument installation points are set by taking into account a region in which the required point cloud density can be met by one measurement and a region in which the required point cloud density cannot be met by one measurement but can be met by overlapping with a measurement from other point, so that the required point cloud density is met in the entire observation site.
However, Ohtomo teaches a method of installing a laser scanner at multiple points in an environment when the measurement range is beyond the scanning range of the laser scanner. The point cloud data overlaps at each installation point, and the point cloud data is synthesized (Fig. 15, installation points A and B, Fig 16, point cloud data 81aⲠand 81bâ˛, Paragraphs [0155]-[0157]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Schuettâs method of scanning an environment with Ohtomoâs method of choosing the multiple scanner installation points such that the multiple point cloud data overlaps and may be synthesized. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the scanning methods and yielded the predictable result of a higher density point cloud.
Regarding claim 2, Schuett, as modified in view of Ohtomo, discloses the eyewear display system according to Claim 1, wherein the observation route is calculated to enable acquisition of point cloud data at required point cloud density by a minimum number of instrument installation points in the entire observation site (Schuett, paragraph 28, block 388 identifying multiple scanner locations to âadequately (e.g., fully) scan the environment,â including âthe minimum number of necessary scanner locations to do soâ) in consideration of the instrument information of the scanner and a three- dimensional structure in the three-dimensional CAD design data (Schuett, paragraph 28, encompasses importing a CAD image or environment map during setup) and the instrument information of the scanner includes coordinates of an instrument center of the scanner, pulse interval setting of the distance-measuring light, and rotation speed setting of the scanner (Schuett, paragraph 28, the language âadequately (e.g., fully) scan the environmentâ defines a standard independent of the qualities of the scanner itself, but whose fulfillment within a set of selected scanning locations directly depends on the qualities of the scanner itself, including coordinate location, pulse interval setting, and rotation speed setting, meaning the instrument information of the scanner is incorporated into the disclosed instrument installment point determination process).
Regarding claim 3, Schuett, as modified in view of Ohtomo, discloses the eyewear display system according to Claim 1, wherein the observation route is calculated to be a shortest route unicursally connecting all instrument installation points in the observation site (Schuett, paragraph 29, the calculated view capture route is calculated in accordance with âcommon algorithms such as the âtraveling salesmanâ or various minimization functions,â with the âtraveling salesmanâ algorithm defining the shortest route connecting a set of points, such as the determined installation points).
Regarding claim 4, Schuett, as modified in view of Ohtomo, discloses the eyewear display system according to Claim 1, wherein the eyewear device is configured to update display of the observation route according to observation progress (Schuett, claim 1, discloses âguidance cuesâ to guide the operator along the view capture route, claim 3, discloses guidance cues including a route display presenting the view capture route to the operator, with the presentation of completed and uncompleted segments of the view capture route distinct, claim 4, discloses guidance cues with a visual indicator communicating the direction for the operator to follow the path along).
Claim 6 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, Schuett, as modified in view of Ohtomo, discloses a computer-readable recording medium (Schuett, paragraph 14, encompasses any claimed technology as capable of being stored and distributed on computer-readable media) having a program for causing the information processing device, which is a computer (Schuett, paragraph 13, specifies embodiments include the form of computer-executable instructions carried out by a programmable computer), to carry out the eyewear display method according to claim 6.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuett, as modified in view of Ohtomo, in further view of Metzler et al., U.S 20200363202 (âMetzlerâ).
Regarding claim 5, Schuett, as modified in view of Ohtomo, discloses the eyewear display system according to Claim 1.
Schuett, as modified in view of Ohtomo, fails to disclose the configuration of the information processing device to recalculate the order of the instrument installation points in the observation route when point cloud observation by the scanner deviates from the observation route.
However, Metzler teaches the configuration of the information processing device to recalculate the order of the instrument installation points in the observation route when point cloud observation by the scanner deviates from the observation route (paragraph 159, teaches the computerized determination of installment points for a scanner and generation of a route for an operator to follow to pass through them all, paragraph 160, teaches the dynamic update and evolution of the displayed route: âsuch a procedure is implemented, in particular, with incremental or dynamic adaptation such that the user need not necessarily or rigidly follow a plan set up once and a visualization is accordingly continuously updated,â wherein the mentioned procedure is the determination of surveying points and the generation of a path connecting them described in paragraph 159, and the wording âuser need not necessarily or rigidly follow a plan set upâ teaching this dynamic evolution in the context of user deviations from the initially determined path, and the scope of recalculation of the optimal path including, but not limited to, the rearrangement of the order of a set of determined surveying points as traversed along the determined path).
Schuett, as modified in view of Ohtomo, and Metzler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surveying apparatuses and methods of their implementation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuett to incorporate the teachings of Metzler and configure the information processing device to recalculate the order of the instrument installation points in the observation route when point cloud observation by the scanner deviates from the observation route. Doing so would ensure the displayed path would always be the most efficient route possible that traverses sufficient scanning location, even in the case of human error, thereby making the surveying method more time-efficient.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examinerâs supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
