Magic Leap, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 4, 20202019004263 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2020) 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. 15/062,104 03/05/2016 Michael J. Woods ML-0247US 6376 132471 7590 11/04/2020 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Magic Leap, Inc.) 2160 Lundy Ave., Ste. 230 San Jose, CA 95131 EXAMINER EARLES, BRYAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/04/2020 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): docketing@viplawgroup.com sp@viplawgroup.com vlm@viplawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MICHAEL J. WOODS ________________ Appeal 2019-004263 Application 15/062,104 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 rejecting claims 1–20, 22–44, 46–66, and 68–70, all of the pending claims. Claims 21, 45, and 67 are canceled. Appeal Br. 23, 26, 28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magic Leap, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-004263 Application 15/062,104 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to an “augmented reality display system compris[ing] a handheld component housing an electromagnetic field emitter, the electromagnetic field emitter emitting a known magnetic field, the head[-]mounted component coupled to one or more electromagnetic sensors that detect the magnetic field emitted by the electromagnetic field emitter housed in the handheld component.” Abstract. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM (Disputed Limitations Emphasized and Bracketing Added) 49. An augmented reality display system, comprising: a handheld component housing an electromagnetic field emitter, the electromagnetic field emitter emitting a known magnetic field; a head mounted component having a display system that displays virtual content to a user, the head mounted component coupled to one or more electromagnetic sensors that detect the magnetic field emitted by the electromagnetic field emitter housed in the handheld component, [1] wherein at least one of the one or more electromagnetic sensors comprises a non-solid ferrite cube, the non-solid ferrite cube increasing electromagnetic field sensitivity and reducing a weight of the non-solid ferrite cube compared with a solid ferrite cube, wherein a head pose is known; and a controller communicatively coupled to the handheld component and the head mounted component, the controller receiving magnetic field data from the handheld component, and receiving sensor data from the head mounted component, wherein the controller determines a hand pose based at least in part on the received magnetic field data and the received sensor data, Appeal 2019-004263 Application 15/062,104 3 wherein the display system modifies the virtual content displayed to the user based at least in part on the determined hand pose. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Lewis US 4,462,165 July 31, 1984 Na’Aman et al. US 2014/0267646 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Efrat et al. US 2014/0222409 A1 Aug. 7, 2014 Jaaskelainen et al. US 2014/0139226 A1 May 22, 2014 Wang et al. US 2005/0107870 A1 May 19, 2005 Foxlin US 2004/0201857 A1 Oct. 14, 2004 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–16, 18–20, 25–40, 42–44, 49–62, and 64–66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Foxlin, Efrat, and Lewis. Final Act. 3–11. The Examiner rejects claims 17, 41, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis, and Na’Aman. Final Act. 11–12. The Examiner rejects claims 22, 23, 46, 47, 68, and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis, and Wang. Final Act. 12–13. The Examiner rejects claims 24, 48, and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis, and Jaaskelainen. Final Act. 13–14. Appeal 2019-004263 Application 15/062,104 4 ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer and in the Final Office Action, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 49 as obvious, the Examiner relies on Foxlin and Efrat for most of the recitations, including a “head mounted component coupled to one or more electromagnetic sensors.” Final Act. 3–5 (citing, e.g., Foxlin ¶ 74, Fig. 1). The Examiner relies on Lewis, however, to teach recitation [1], “wherein at least one of the one or more electromagnetic sensors comprises a non-solid ferrite cube.” See id. at 5 (citing Lewis 2:7– 31, Figs. 1–3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify the electromagnetic field sensor of the [augmented reality] display system, as taught by Foxlin and Efrat, to incorporate using a non-solid ferrite cube as the electromagnetic field sensor, as taught by Lewis, in order to provide a simple and low[-]cost electromagnetic field sensor.” Id. at 5–6 (citing Lewis 3:13–18). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Lewis does not disclose, describe, teach, or suggest a ferrite cube, let alone an electromagnetic sensor comprising a non- solid ferrite cube. Instead, Lewis discloses an orientation sensor that can automatically compensate for errors caused by ferrous materials located in the surrounding environment – without ever disclosing the orientation sensor comprises a ferrite cube. Appeal 2019-004263 Application 15/062,104 5 Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added). That is, Appellant argues “the sensor of Lewis ‘includes a magnetic permeable core,’ which would not include ferrite.” Id. (citing Lewis 1:52–55). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Lewis teaches a sensor having a “magnetic permeable core” with three sets of parallel axis legs that “can be envisioned as six continuous edges of a cube.” Lewis 2:19–31. The Examiner acknowledges that “Lewis does not expressly state that[] the material for the magnetic permeable core 10 is selected from a list of materials including a ferrimagnetic (magnetic ferrite) material.” Ans. 15. The Examiner finds, however, that “it would be well within the routine practice of a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ the use of ferrites, a type of material commonly used in magnetic permeable cores, simply by ascertaining the application in which the sensor is to be applied.” Id. The Examiner thus concludes, [it would have been] obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization and based on the parameters of the desired application, to select a particular material for the magnetic permeable core from a finite list of materials, comprising: Ferromagnetic Materials (e.g., Fe, Co and Ni), Anti-Ferromagnetic Materials (e.g., chromium, FeMn alloy and NiO) and Ferrimagnetic Materials (e.g., Fe3O4). Id. at 16. That is, the Examiner concludes that use of ferrite materials for magnetic permeable cores would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill. Appellant does not substantively rebut the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the use of ferrite materials for magnetic permeable cores. Rather, Appellant contends, “the Examiner’s Answer appears to have Appeal 2019-004263 Application 15/062,104 6 attempted to take Official Notice. If the Examiner’s Answer has intended to take Official Notice, such an attempt is traversed, at least because it is not in compliance with the USPTO’s own procedures.” Reply Br. 3. Whether the Examiner improperly took official notice without properly complying with Office procedure is a petitionable matter, not an appealable matter. MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the Director on petition”); see also, e.g., Ex Parte Lennon Image Techs., LLC, Appeal No. 2015-006360, 2017 WL 4217297, at *18 (PTAB 2017) (non-precedential). We decline, then, to address the question. Because we find the Examiner’s unrebutted findings and analysis reasonable, we agree with the Examiner that the Lewis sensor—having a magnetic permeable core—would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill an electromagnetic sensor comprising a non-solid ferrite cube. Final Act. 5; Ans. 15–16. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Lewis suggests recitation [1]. Appellant further argues the Examiner erred because The Lewis disclosure not only fails to disclose electromagnetic sensors comprising a nonsolid ferrite cube[,] but in fact explicitly teaches away from at least the aforementioned claim limitations because the Lewis disclosure teaches the desirability of compensating for errors caused by ferrous materials located in the surrounding, therefore suggesting that the sensor of Lewis would function better without the presence of ferrous materials. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Lewis teaches that its “three axis orientation sensor . . . operates in a ferrous environment” Appeal 2019-004263 Application 15/062,104 7 (Lewis 1:39–40) and automatically compensates “for errors caused by the ferrous materials located in the surrounding environment” (id. at 1:45–48). “[I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). But here, the Examiner correctly characterizes the ability of the Lewis sensor to operate in a ferrous environment as an enhancement or feature. Ans. 16. Moreover, being operable in a ferrous environment (as opposed to being inoperable in a ferrous environment) fails to suggest using ferrous materials (e.g., a ferrite cube) would be unlikely to be productive for the result sought by Appellant (i.e., “increasing electromagnetic field sensitivity and reducing a weight of the non-solid ferrite cube compared with a solid ferrite cube”). Appeal Br. 26–27 (claim 49). Therefore, Appellant has not established that Lewis teaches away from modifying the combination of Foxlin and Efrat to include recitation [1]. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obvious rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 49, and of claims 1–20, 22–44, 46–48, 50–66, and 68–70, which Appellant does not argue separately with persuasive specificity. Appeal Br. 17–19. Appeal 2019-004263 Application 15/062,104 8 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–16, 18–20, 25–40, 49–62, 64–66 103 Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis 1–16, 18–20, 25–40, 42–44, 49–62, 64–66 17, 41, 63 103 Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis, Na’Aman 17, 41, 63 22, 23, 46, 47, 68, 69 103 Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis, Wang 22, 23, 46, 47, 68, 69 24, 48, 70 103 Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis, Jaaskelainen 24, 48, 70 Overall Outcome 1–20, 22–44, 46–66, 68–70 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking 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