Ex Parte Tuukkanen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13774543 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131774,543 02/22/2013
137284 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
03/28/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MARKO TAPIO TUUKKANEN
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.
P6994USOO 7357
EXAMINER
DOAN,PHUCN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKO TAPIO TUUKKANEN
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-18, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is HERE GLOBAL B.V.
App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed January
17, 2017; the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed August 2, 2017; Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed June 14, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed May 18, 2016; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed February 22,
2013.
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention relates to a "method and apparatus for
presenting task-related objects in an augmented reality display" or
"augmented reality user interface" for user guidance, by "causing a
presentation of one or more indications of one or more parts associated with
at least one task, alongside guides for aligning the one or more indications
with the one or more parts in the augmented reality user interface." Spec.
i-f 2; Title (capitalization altered); Abstract.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method comprising:
presenting one or more indications of one or more parts
in an augmented reality user interface, wherein the one or more
parts are associated with at least one task associated with at
least one vehicle, and wherein the augmented reality user
interface comprises an electronic display of a user equipment
having a camera;
presenting one or more guides for alignment of the one or
more indications with the one or more parts in the augmented
reality user interface,
wherein the alignment is realized by movement of the
augmented reality user interface to align the one or more
indications with the one or more parts located in real space, and
wherein the electronic display allows a user to view the
augmented reality user inteiface during the alignment;
processing sensor information, telematics information, or
a combination thereof to determine an issue associated with the
at least one vehicle; and
initiating, in response to the sensor information,
telematics information, or a combination thereof, presentation
in the electronic display of the user equipment of a tutorial
2
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
video as a step by step guide to address the issue associated
with the at least one vehicle.
App. Br. 12-16 (Claims App'x).
Examiner's Rejection & References
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ross (US 2013/0046592 Al; published Feb. 21,
2013), Valdes et al. (US 2002/0167536 Al; published Nov. 14, 2002;
"Valdes"), Lampotang et al. (US 2010/0159434 Al; published June 24,
2010; "Lampotang"), and Olsen et al. (US 2005/0203683 Al; published
Sept. 15, 2005; "Olsen"). Final Act. 3-10.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is:
(i) whether the combination of Ross, Valdes, Lampotang, and
Olsen teaches or suggests "the augmented reality user interface
comprises an electronic display of a user equipment having a
camera ... wherein the electronic display allows a user to view
the augmented reality user interface during the alignment," as
recited in Appellant's independent claim 1, and similarly recited
in independent claim 11,
(ii) whether the combination of Ross, Valdes, Lampotang, and
Olsen teaches or suggests "processing sensor information,
telematics information, or a combination thereof to determine an
issue associated with the at least one vehicle" and "initiating, in
response to the sensor information, telematics information, or a
combination thereof, presentation in the electronic display of the
user equipment of a tutorial video as a step by step guide to
address the issue associated with the at least one vehicle," as
recited in Appellant's independent claim 1, and similarly recited
in independent claim 11, and
3
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
(iii) whether the Examiner's combination of Ross, Valdes, and
Lampotang is improper, and whether Ross, Valdes, and
Lampotang are analogous art.
App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2--4.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Ross' s
mobile application for providing vehicle information to users presents
indications (overlay label 304 for washer fluid, label 306 for battery, and
label 308 for oil) of vehicle parts (washer fluid cap, battery, and oil cap) in
an augmented reality user interface, the car parts being associated with
vehicle tasks (fluid maintenance, check battery, and oil change), as required
by claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Ross Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds
Ross's mobile application presents vehicle parts in an augmented reality user
interface, and processes telematics information to determine an issue
associated with the vehicle, as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3, 5 (citing
Ross iii! 23, 29, Fig. 3).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on (1)
Valdes for teaching the claimed "presenting one or more guides for
alignment of the one or more indications" with parts in an augmented reality
user interface, "the alignment [being] realized by movement of the
augmented reality user interface to align the one or more indications with the
one or more parts located in real space," (2) Lampotang for teaching the
claimed "augmented reality user interface compris[ing] an electronic display
of a user equipment having a camera" and "the electronic display allows a
user to view the augmented reality user interface during the alignment," and
4
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
(3) Olsen for teaching the claimed "processing sensor information,
telematics information, or a combination thereof to determine an issue
associated with the at least one vehicle" and "initiating, in response to the
sensor information, telematics information, or a combination thereof,
presentation in the electronic display of the user equipment of a tutorial ...
as a step by step guide to address the issue associated with the at least one
vehicle." Final Act. 3---6 (citing Valdes i-fi-18, 47, 68, 70, Figs. 2, 3, 13;
Lampotang i-fi-136, 47; Olsen i-fi-14, 47, 72, 77, 79).
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Lampotang and Olsen. In particular, Appellant argues Lampotang does not
teach or suggest the claimed "alignment" and "does not disclose an
'augmented reality user interface' as seen in Ross and Valdes"; rather,
"Lampotang discloses a virtual reality user interface that reflects real-world
actions" and an "'alignment' ... of replacing real objects with virtual
objects instead of placing virtual objects in/among real objects, which is
what augmented reality interfaces describe." App. Br. 7 (citing Lampotang
i-fi-136, 50, 79). Appellant also argues the Examiner's combination of Ross,
Valdes, and Lampotang is improper because "the references are not
analogous and address different issues with different solutions," and "there
is no showing" that Lampotang's simulator system "could, with reasonable
likelihood of success, be operable and implementable with another
augmented reality interface such as described in Ross or Valdes." Reply Br.
3--4 (citing Lampotang i-f 12; Valdes Abstract; Ross i13, Abstract); see also
App. Br. 7-8. Appellant additionally argues Olsen does not teach or suggest
(i) presenting, in an electronic display of a user equipment, a tutorial video
as a step by step guide to address a vehicle issue, and (ii) initiating such
5
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
presentation in response to sensor information, telematics information, or a
combination thereof, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8-10.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 3-7. Therefore, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
additional emphasis, we note although Lampotang describes superimposing
a virtual object (e.g., virtual anesthesia machine) over a physical
simulation/model on a display (see Lampotang i-fi-f 12, 46, 77), Lampotang
also indicates that "embodiments are not limited thereto" and additionally
describes an augmented reality interface superimposing a virtual object over
a real object located in real space (see Lampotang i177, see also i-fi-136, 64).
Particularly, Lampotang describes "accurately aligning virtual objects within
the display with the real objects (e.g., the physical object or simulator), [so]
they can appear to exist in the same space," such that "V AM [virtual
anesthesia machine] components are reorganized to align with the real
machine[, t ]hen, the spatially reorganized components are superimposed into
the user's view of the real machine" and "the simulation is synchronized
with the real machine." See Lampotang i-fi-136, 77 (emphasis added).
"[C]ombining the interaction and visualization of the VAM and the real
machine" can "help students to visualize the mapping between the V AM
model and the real machine." See Lampotang i177 (emphasis added). Thus,
we find Lampotang teaches an augmented reality user interface comprising
an electronic display that allows a user to view the augmented reality user
interface during alignment of virtual objects (e.g., Lampotang's VAM
components) to a real object located in real space (Lampotang's real
6
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
anesthesia machine), as required by claim 1. Ans. 3; Final Act. 4.
Lampotang further discloses its alignment technique can be applied to
vehicle parts. See Lampotang i-f 86 ("Embodiments of the mixed simulator
can combine any kind of physical simulation or object or instrument that is
to be the subject of the training or simulation, such as a car engine").
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Ross, Valdes,
and Lampotang are not analogous or combinable. Reply Br. 3--4; App. Br.
7-8. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that "Ross, Valdes and Lampotang
... are analogous arts as all of them us[e] mobile devices to
display/superimpose/overlay virtual objects on/among real objects." Ans. 4.
Particularly, Ross, Val des, and Lampotang (discussed in detail supra)
capture and analyze images of real objects located in real space, to enable
alignment of virtual indications to the real objects on an augmented reality
interface. See Ross i-fi-122-23, 25 (aligning "certain known objects 203 such
as an engine, a washer fluid cap, an oil cap, and a battery" to "labels 205"
presenting overlaid information for respective car parts), Fig. 3; Valdes
i-fi-1 44, 4 7 (using "an alignment indicator 16 which corresponds to the edge of
[a] circuit board" to "align the real scene 14 [comprising an electronic circuit
board] with the overlay scene 15" that "comprises annotation which
provides the user with information about specific parts of the electronic
circuit board ... [such as] pointing out where adjustments should be made"),
Figs. 3A-3C; Lampotang i-fi-136, 77 ("V AM [virtual anesthesia machine]
components are reorganized to align with the real machine"); Ans. 3; Final
Act. 3--4. Like Ross, Valdes, and Lampotang, Appellant's claimed invention
is similarly concerned with alignment of virtual indications to imaged real
objects on an augmented reality interface. See Spec. i-f 2 ("there is a need for
7
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
an approach for causing a presentation of one or more indications of one or
more parts associated with at least one task, alongside guides for aligning the
one or more indications with the one or more parts in the augmented reality
user interface"). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Ross, Valdes,
and Lampotang would have logically commended themselves to the problem
of aligning virtual indications to imaged real objects on an augmented reality
interface addressed in the present application. Ans. 3--4. Thus, we find
Ross, Valdes, and Lampotang are analogous art to Appellant's claimed
invention. Ans. 4. Additionally, the Examiner has presented reasoning
supported by a rational underpinning for combining Ross, Valdes, and
Lampotang, which Appellant has not addressed. Ans. 3; Final Act. 4--5.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Olsen does
not teach or suggest presenting, in an electronic display of a user equipment,
a step by step guide to address a vehicle issue. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues
Olsen is "silent as to repairs and facilitation of repair over an iP AQ device"
(a handheld computing device having an electronic display), and "Olsen
does not necessarily disclose that step-by-step instructions are sent to the
portable data acquisition device 130 [the iPAQ]." App. Br. 9--10.
We disagree. Olsen teaches "displaying/showing/presenting
instructions/tutorial (step by step guide) received from the [hub] facility [that
sends instructions to a vehicle operator operating the vehicle] that assist the
vehicle operator in making repairs or addressing [an] issue notified by the
telematics sensor." Ans. 5---6 (citing Olsen i-fi-147, 77, 79). Particularly,
Olsen teaches "messages and instructions are received directly by the
telematics device 120 and transmitted, when appropriate ... to the portable
data acquisition device 130" that "is a hand-held data acquisition device, like
8
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
an iPAQ." See Olsen i-fi-147, 59 (emphasis added). The "receive[d]
instructions ... assist the vehicle operator in making repairs while the
vehicle is traveling on its route," and "the [vehicle operator's] portable data
acquisition device 130 can display or play the [received] messages." See
Olsen i-fi-1 72, 79.
Thus, Olsen suggests a "presentation in the electronic display of the
user equipment of a tutorial ... as a step by step guide to address the issue
associated with the at least one vehicle," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 6.
In addition, Olsen teaches telematics information initiates a
presentation by the portable user equipment (iP AQ) that "displays telematics
data for the driver's viewing, which is helpful in troubleshooting vehicle
performance problems and showing delivery route progress and
instructions." Ans. 6 (citing Olsen i-fi-147, 77, 79). Similarly, Ross teaches
"using [a] portable device to present maintenance instructions according to
the telematics services offered by modem vehicles." Ans. 6 (citing Ross i12,
Fig. 4). Thus, Ross and Olsen teach or suggest initiating, in response to
telematics information, presentation in an electronic display of a user's
equipment, of a step by step guide to address an issue associated with a
vehicle, as required by claim 1.
With respect to the claimed "tutorial video as a step by step guide,"
Appellant argues "[ e ]ven if a video for step-by-step instructions was
generally known," the claimed "'presentation in the electronic display of the
user equipment of a tutorial video as a step by step guide to address the issue
associated with the at least one vehicle' is not." App. Br. 10. We remain
unpersuaded because Ross and Olsen teach presenting a tutorial as a step by
step guide to address a vehicle issue, and the Examiner provides
9
Appeal2017-010394
Application 13/774,543
documentary evidence to demonstrate that "it was 'well known in the art' to
use video as [such] tutorial instructions (step by step)." Ans. 6-7 (emphasis
added). In addition, Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. As such, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1, and similarly, independent claim 11 for
which Appellant provides the same arguments, and dependent claims 2-8
and 12-18 argued for their dependency thereon. App. Br. 10.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8
and 11-18.
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
10