Metaio GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 16, 2020

15316103 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020)

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. 15/316,103 12/02/2016 Daniel Kurz P28520US1 (119-1134US1) 1072 61947 7590 11/16/2020 Apple - Blank Rome c/o Blank Rome LLP 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 EXAMINER HOANG, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/16/2020 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): houstonpatents@blankrome.com mbrininger@blankrome.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DANIEL KURZ and ANTON FEDOSOV ________________ Appeal 2019-005872 Application 15/316,103 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30‒35, 37‒42, 44‒48, and 50‒52, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims 36, 43, and 49 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 11, 13, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005872 Application 15/316,103 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to augmented reality devices with multiple operating modes. Spec. 1:6‒21. Claim 30 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 30. A method of presenting digital information related to a real object, comprising: determining a spatial relationship between a camera and a real object for which digital information is to be presented; selecting a presentation mode from a plurality of presentation modes according to the spatial relationship, wherein the plurality of presentation modes comprises at least an augmented reality mode, and at least one alternative mode; and presenting at least one representation of the digital information using the selected presentation mode. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 30, 33‒35, 37, 40‒42, 44, 46‒48, and 50‒52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Alessandro et al., Zooming Interfaces for Augmented Reality Browsers, MobileHCI 2010 (“Alessandro”) and Benton (US 2003/0210832 A1; Nov. 13, 2003). See Final Act. 3‒9. Claims 31, 32, 38, 39, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Alessandro, Benton, and Lehtinlemi (US 2013/0263016 A1; Oct. 3, 2013). See Final Act. 9‒13. Appeal 2019-005872 Application 15/316,103 3 ANALYSIS Claims 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 42, 44, 46, and 48 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 30 because Alessandro does not teach or suggest “determining a spatial relationship between a camera and a real object for which digital information is to be presented” and “selecting a presentation mode from a plurality of presentation modes according to the spatial relationship.” See Appeal Br. 5‒ 6; Reply Br. 1‒2. In particular, Appellant argues Alessandro teaches tracking changes in camera pose that result from tilting or panning the camera and these changes are independent of any spatial relationship between the camera and any particular object. Id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 30 recites “determining a spatial relationship between a camera and a real object.” Claim 30 does not further limit the “spatial relationship.” Appellant argues that this spatial relationship does not include the camera’s pose, or its orientation relative to the ground or gravity. This argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Indeed, Appellant’s Specification explicitly confirms that “[a] spatial relationship between a camera and a real object may include physical distances or angles.” Spec. 12:15‒16. The Specification also confirms that “[t]he spatial relationship may further be indicative of an orientation.” Id. at 12:30‒31. The Specification clarifies that “if the real object is the environment (e.g. a city, buildings, plants, or a land), at least part of the spatial relationship between a camera and the real object may comprise the orientation of the camera with respect to gravity.” Id. at 12:34‒37. In other words, Appellant’s Specification directly contradicts the narrow interpretation on which Appeal 2019-005872 Application 15/316,103 4 Appellant relies for the claimed “spatial relationship.” We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Alessandro’s teachings regarding changes in the camera’s orientation teach or suggest the claimed “spatial relationship.” For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 30. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 37 and 44, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 5‒6. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 33, 35, 40, 42, 46, and 48, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id. at 5‒8. Claims 34, 41, and 47 Claim 34 recites: The method of claim 30, wherein selecting a presentation mode from the plurality of presentation modes according to the spatial relationship comprises: determining whether the spatial relationship indicates that a distance between the camera and the real object is below a threshold, and in response to determining that the spatial relationship indicates that the distance between the camera and the real object is below the threshold, selecting the augmented reality mode as the presentation mode. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 34 because Alessandro does not teach or suggest “determining whether the spatial relationship indicates that a distance between the camera and the real object is below a threshold.” See Appeal Br. 6‒7. In particular, Appellant argues Alessandro teaches changing the orientation of the camera, but is silent regarding any distance measurement or any threshold. See id. As discussed above with respect to claim 30, the Examiner finds Alessandro teaches rotations of the camera that are measured as changes in angular distance, which the Examiner finds teaches the claimed “spatial Appeal 2019-005872 Application 15/316,103 5 relationship.” We agree with Appellant that claim 34—unlike claim 30— requires that the “spatial relationship” be a distance from the camera to a real object because claim 34 specifies that the “spatial relationship indicates that a distance between the camera and the real object is below a threshold.” (Emphasis added). The Examiner has failed to establish that Alessandro teaches a spatial relationship that indicates a distance between the camera and the real object because the cited portions of Alessandro teach changes in the angular orientation of the camera without any consideration of distances to the real object. The Examiner cites Alessandro’s teaching of “angular distances” for this limitation (see Ans. 14 (citing Alessandro p. 5, right column, ¶ 4)), but this reference to “angular distances” merely indicates that changes in the camera’s orientation are measured as changes in angular distance, not as changes in distance to any real object. We also agree that the Examiner has not sufficiently established or explained how Alessandro teaches the claimed determination using a “threshold.” We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 34. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 41 and 47, which recite commensurate subject matter and for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal Br. 6‒7. Claims 50‒52 Claim 50 recites: The method of claim 30, further comprising: determining an updated spatial relationship between the camera and the real object; selecting a second presentation mode from the plurality of presentation modes according to the updated spatial relationship; and Appeal 2019-005872 Application 15/316,103 6 presenting a second representation of the digital information using the selected second presentation mode. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 50 because Alessandro does not teach “determining an updated spatial relationship between the camera and the real object.” See Appeal Br. 7‒8. In particular, Appellant argues that although the spatial relationship may change, the reference does not determine an updated spatial relationship or select a presentation mode according to any updated spatial relationship. Id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Alessandro teaches a user turns a camera between various orientations, causing different view presentations to be displayed to the user. Ans. 16 (citing Alessandro, Figs. 1 and 2). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the spatial relationship between the camera and the real object is constantly updated based on user interaction. Id. Appellant responds that the only changes being determined are changes in the camera’s pose, not changes in a spatial relationship, repeating substantially the same argument Appellant presented for claim 30. For the reasons discussed above, this argument is unpersuasive of error. Thus, Appellant has not persuasively identified error in the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 50. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 50. We also sustain the rejection of claims 51 and 52, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2019-005872 Application 15/316,103 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 30, 33‒35, 37, 40‒42, 44, 46‒48, 50‒52 103 Alessandro, Benton 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50‒52 34, 41, 47 31, 32, 38, 39, 45 103 Alessandro, Benton, Lehtinlemi 31, 32, 38, 39, 45 Overall Outcome 30‒33, 35, 37‒40, 42, 44‒46, 48, 50‒52 34, 41, 47 TIME PERIOD FOR 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED IN PART