Amidst Galaxy Note 7 Recall, USPTO Publishes Samsung Patent Application for HMD with a Heat Radiator

Samsung_Logo.svg

As reported by various news outlets today, Samsung announced an unprecedented recall of the Galaxy Note 7 just weeks after launching the smartphone due to the phone’s battery, with some scattered reports that “the cell can explode while charging.”

In a bit of irony, yesterday, the USPTO published Samsung’s patent application for a HMD having “a heat radiator” for removing heat from the space between the display and the optical assembly while a smartphone is actively engaged.  The device in the application appears to be a version of the Gear VR, with which the Galaxy Note 7 was designed to operate.

As seen in FIG. 6 (below) of Samsung’s application, the HMD includes a heat radiator 400 on a side surface of the frame 202.  The heat radiator 400 includes a fan 410 with a blade, or a piezo cooler, and also includes a fan duct 420 and a fan cover member 430.  The fan 410 and the fan duct 420 is installed in the frame 202 in a mounting opening unit 260.

 

Samsung 748 FIG 6

As shown in FIG. 7 (below), the heat radiator 400  dissipates the heat from the smartphone 300 by bringing external air into the frame 202.  Heat is transferred to the air introduced into the frame 202 through the heat radiator 400, and then the air is discharged through an outlet on the bottom surface of the frame 202, thus making it more comfortable for the user of the device 200.

 

Samsung 748 FIG 7

Samsung’s application also discusses using a heat diffusion member that can be installed to more efficiently transfer heat from the smartphone to the air in the frame 202. The heat diffusion member may be a graphite sheet, a heat transfer member containing carbon such as graphene, a metal member such as a copper sheet, or a heat transfer member such as a heat pipe or heat sink.  The application makes no mention of fire suppression technology.

According to public records, Samsung’s patent application claims priority to a Korean patent application that was originally filed in February 2015.

Advertisements

Oculus Patent Filings Reveal HMD-Mounted Depth-Mapping Apparatus

03_Oculus-Full-Lockup-Horizontal-BlackEarlier today, the USPTO published two patent applications (here and here), assigned to Oculus VR, directed to depth-mapping technology using a HMD-mounted device.

As shown in FIG. 13 (below), the patent applications describe the apparatus, as follows,

oculus 821 pub FIG 13

“[A]pparatus 1310 comprises a headset 1340 configured for use with a mobile device 1320 (e.g., a smartphone). The head mounted apparatus 1310 may include an illuminator 1312 (e.g., laser transmitter, infrared pattern illuminator) and a camera 1314 (e.g., an IR camera 214). [..] The head mounted apparatus 1310 is further configured to physically and electronically interface with the mobile device 1320 and the headset 1340. [..]  The head mounted apparatus 1310 allows a virtual reality headset to be enhanced by allowing three-dimensional images of objects from an environment surrounding the head mounted apparatus 1310 (e.g., body parts of a user) to be viewed within a virtual reality scene. Hence, the head mounted apparatus 1310 provides hardware for coupling to a near eye display and executes instructions for controlling the head mounted apparatus 1310 and analyzing captured data.”

Interestingly, the apparatus in FIG. 13 appears to have another camera/projector adjacent to the camera 1314.  However, neither of Oculus’s patent applications identify or describe this feature of the drawing.

Claim 1 of the ‘812 publication recites:

1.  A method comprising:

projecting a structured light pattern into a volume, the structured light pattern comprising a predefined structure having a plurality of features, each feature comprising a predefined variation;

detecting light reflected from one or more objects in the volume, the detected light including one or more of the features of the predefined structure of the structured light pattern;

correlating the one or more features in the detected light with the predefined structure; and

determining depth information for objects associated with each of the one more features in the detected light based on the correlating.

Curiously, FIG. 13 in Oculus’s patent application also appears to resemble the depth-sensing “unicorn” accessory teased by Intel last month (reported by UploadVR).  As shown in the photograph (below), Intel’s device appears to be mounted to an HTC Vive.  Dimitri Diakopoulos, an Intel engineer, revealed to UploadVR that the accessory “could track hand movement[,] IR-tracked controllers [and] scan the environment in real-time.”  The photo, taken from Diakopoulous’s Twitter feed, appears to have been removed.

intel-depth-1000x800

Apple Receives Patent for Head-Mounted Display for Use with Smartphones

apple

Apple has been in the news a lot lately  — from the $14.5 billion EU tax fine to the anticipated announcement of the iPhone 7 just a few days away.

However, Apple has been conspicuously silent about its plans with regard to virtual and augmented reality. Although Apple has not made any formal announcements (apart from recent statements by Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, regarding VR and AR), it’s patent filings may provide a hint about the direction they are going.

On Tuesday, the USPTO issued a new patent to Apple (USP No. 9,429,579), entitled “Head-Mounted Display Apparatus for Retaining a Portable Electronic Device with Display.” This marks the seventh U.S. patent that Apple has received relating to HMDs. (Samsung has fourteen U.S. patents relating to HMDs, with five of them being design patents.) Although recently issued, the ‘579 patent is a member in a family of patents, whose parent was filed in September 2008.  In other words, Apple has been toying with the idea of an HMD for at least the last eight years.

Claim 1 of the ‘579  patent recites:

A head-mounted device that is worn on a user’s head and configured to integrate with a cellular telephone that is removable, the head-mounted device comprising:

a frame that is configured to physically receive and carry the cellular telephone, wherein the frame places a display screen of the cellular telephone in front of the user’s eyes; and

an optical subassembly configured to receive at least one image frame from the display screen of the cellular telephone, wherein the optical subassembly is interposed between the display screen and the user’s eyes.

As described in the specification, the optical subassembly (shown below at 604) may include “lenses, light guides, light sources, mirrors, diffusers, and the like.” Specifically, optical sub assemblies may include “aspherical and diffractive optical arrangements.”  In addition, the optical subassembly may also include “one or more optical modules that may be operative to adjust or modify the displayed media based on any suitable criteria.” For example, the “optical modules” may offset left and right images so that the user is given the illusion of viewing media in three dimensions.

As we’ve said before, a company’s patent filings are certainly no guarantee that a commercial product will ever be released.  However, based on recent rumors surrounding Apple’s acquisitions, hirings and iPhone 7 technology, it is a good bet that Apple has something in the works.

Magic Leap Violates Laws Prohibiting Restraints on Employee Mobility Says Defendants

magic leapAs reported back in June, augmented reality startup, Magic Leap, filed a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit in the Northern District of California against two former high-level employees, Dr. Gary Bradski and Dr. Adrian Kaehler.  Magic Leap’s complaint alleges, among other things, that Bradski and Kaehler worked together for at least a year, while employed by Magic Leap, to create and develop plans for a new company using “Magic Leap’s intellectual property and Proprietary Technologies.”

Earlier this month, Bradski and Kaehler struck back against Magic Leap with a flurry of responsive filings.

First, in their Motion to Dismiss, the defendants allege that Magic Leap’s lawsuit “violates Dr. Bradski and Dr. Kaehler’s freedom to pursue independent consulting; in addition, California law prohibits restraints on employee mobility and ‘protects Californians and ensures that every citizen shall retain the right to pursue any lawful employment an enterprise of their choice.'”  The motion alleges that both Bradski and Kaehler were considered experts in computer vision and machine learning, and discussed starting a robotics company long before joining Magic Leap.  Moreover, according to the motion, both Bradski’s and Kaehler’s employment agreements with Magic Leap each provided that “he will be free to pursue independent consulting work.”  After their hiring, Magic Leap allegedly failed to allocate budget to Kaehler’s project, and “for Dr. Bradski’s part, he had been increasingly ostracized.”  In March and April 2016, Kaehler disclosed his plans to leave Magic Leap to work on a “noncompetitive project,” and both Kaehler and Bradski subsequently returned their computers and research to Magic Leap.

In terms of legal argument, the motion asserts that “Dr. Bradski’s and Dr. Kaehler’s skills and expertise, pre-dating employment, and their prior work combining machine vision, deep nets, and robotics cannot be any Magic Leap trade secret.”  In an interesting legal argument, Defendants also assert that the Defense of Trade Secrets Act claims should be barred because “all acts complained of occurred, were disclosed, and ceased prior to the [DTSA] going into effect on May 22, 2016.”

In addition to its Motion to Dismiss, Defendants each filed a Motion for Sanctions of Dismissal (“Rule 11 Motions”) against Magic Leap.  The Rule 11 Motions forcefully assert that Magic Leap filed a “baseless suit without reasonable inquiry; and for the improper purpose of harassing the defendants, staging a fishing expedition and smear campaign designed to paralyze and prevent defendants from any gainful employment.”  In addition to dismissal, defendants seek an award of attorneys’ fees which they claim are “justified and necessary for effective deterrence of future violations by Magic Leap and similarly-minded employers.”

Magic Leap has until September 12 to respond to Kaehler’s and Bradski’s Motions to Dismiss and Rule 11 Motions.  A hearing on the motions is scheduled for Wednesday, October 12, 2016.

BMW Dismisses Design Patent Lawsuit Against TurboSquid

TurboSquidTwo months ago, we reported on a lawsuit filed in New Jersey by BMW against digital media company, TurboSquid, Inc.  According to the complaint, TurboSquid was “marketing 3-D virtual models of vehicles that infringe the BMW trademarks, trade dress, and design patents.”  The case presented interesting legal questions with respect to IP and virtual reality.  For example, can selling a digital 3D model of a car, which exists only in virtual reality, infringe a design patent?

On August 10, BMW filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the case — without prejudice — leaving open the possibility of BMW “rebooting” its lawsuit against TurboSquid in the future.  Thus, at least for now, it appears that the interesting legal questions are left to be resolved in a different or future dispute.  Interestingly, we note that TurboSquid no longer sells 3-D models of BMW or Mini Cooper vehicles on their website — although they do have models of other vehicle manufacturers, such as Tesla, Audi and Toyota.

Another Update on ZeniMax v. Oculus

As reported here earlier, the two year-old legal battle over the Oculus Rift between ZeniMax  Media and Oculus VR continues to rage on in a federal court in Texas, with trial set for January 9, 2017.  Less than two weeks ago, the court granted ZeniMax’s motion to unseal its Second Amended Complaint, which raises new allegations against Oculus and Palmer Luckey, and now adds Brendan Iribe and John Carmack as defendants.

ZeniMax’s pleading remains substantially the same as its previous complaint, but adds some interesting new allegations.  For example, the new complaintZvO - SAC images alleges that Luckey “lacked the expertise, knowledge, training or resources” to develop VR technology and did not have the “expertise or knowledge to create a viable SDK for the Rift.”  ZeniMax also alleges that Carmack admitted that “without ZeniMax, Oculus ‘wouldn’t exist as a funded company.'”  (an admission most likely obtained during deposition.)

The most relevant new allegations, however, may have to do with the Non-Disclosure Agreement signed between Luckey and ZeniMax in May 2012.  As reported earlier, the NDA allegedly prohibited Luckey from using or disclosing ZeniMax’s Proprietary Information (including its trade secrets), as shown below:

ZvO - SAC images-2

According to the new complaint, Luckey “informed Iribe and others about the NDA he had signed which … confirmed that ZeniMax alone owned the critical VR technology being used by Oculus.”  Despite this, “Iribe privately directed Luckey and other Oculus employees to continue to obtain ZeniMax’s hardware and software technology from Carmack, and Iribe directed Oculus’s employees to use that technology to create the Oculus SDK and to develop, modify, and tune the Oculus Rift hardware.”  Further, the complaint alleges that throughout several rounds of financing and continuing through Facebook’s acquisition of Oculus, Luckey and Iribe “concealed from potential investors and business partners the existence of the NDA that Luckey had executed.”

ZvO - SAC images-3ZeniMax’s complaint also levels some new allegations at Carmack, who was previously employed by iD Software (a ZeniMax sub) before becoming the Chief Technology Officer at Oculus in August 2013.  Allegedly, “before leaving ZeniMax, Carmack secretly and illegally copied thousands of documents containing ZeniMax’s intellectual property from his computer at ZeniMax to a USB storage device which he wrongfully took with him to Oculus.  After he had joined Oculus, Carmack returned to ZeniMax’s premises and took without permission a customized tool that Carmack and other ZeniMax personnel had developed for work on virtual reality.”  According to ZeniMax, “Carmack has refused to return the tool to ZeniMax, and he has used this tool for developing virtual reality technology for Oculus.”

Oculus recently issued a response stating that the “complaint filed by ZeniMax is one-sided and conveys only ZeniMax’s interpretation of the story. We continue to believe this case has no merit, and we will address all of ZeniMax’s allegations in court.”

With the trial less than six months away, the parties continue to engage in a pitched legal battle, with recent filings including motions to exclude expert reports, motions for sanctions and motions to compel the production of documents (all of which are sealed).  According to the court’s scheduling order, motions for summary judgment are due in one week on September 2, 2016, and pre-trial filings due on December 2, 2016.

Finally, the court has ordered the parties to hold a face-to-face meeting to discuss settlement in mid-December.  Will the parties eventually settle?  If the recent failed mediation is any indication, the answer may be ‘no.’  However, the cost of trial (and subsequent appeals) could play a large factor.  Perhaps the only sure take-away from this story is that there will be some unhappy associates working over Thanksgiving this year.

Is Sony Going to Launch Its Own ‘Powerglove’ for the PSVR?

PSVRWith the launch of Sony’s Playstation VR less than two months away, Sony continues to be busy on the patent front with respect to virtual reality.  Earlier today, two patent applications assigned to Sony Computer Entertainment, each entitled “Magnetic Tracking of Glove Fingertips,” were published by the USPTO.  The full patent application can be seen here.

While Sony has filed patents for a similar technology in the past, these new patent publications (originally filed in February 2015) relate to a “magnetic tracking system to track fingertips and knuckles … that capture hand/finger pose.”

As seen in FIG. 4A (right), Sony’s application describes a glove Sony Magnetic Gloveinterface object having a plurality of emitters and proximity sensors.  The proximity sensors (404a-e) are located at the fingertip portions/areas of the glove, and are configured to “generate data indicating distance/proximity” to the emitters (422a-c) located on the wrist.  The application goes on to describe the wrist portion as a “bracelet that surrounds the user’s wrist when the glove … is worn.”

“The emitters are defined by electromagnets, and the proximity sensors are defined by magnetic sensors such as Hall effect sensors.”  A Hall effect sensor is a type of magnetic sensor used to detect a magnetic field. (In an alternative embodiment, Sony’s application also describes a glove system in which the emitters are defined by ultrasonic emitters and the proximity sensors are defined by microphones capable of detecting ultrasonic frequencies.)

As further described in the application, the glove will include a controller for powering and operating the sensors and emitters and communicating with the gaming console.  The controller can be configured to control the activation of the emitters and the reading of the proximity sensors in a time division multiplexed arrangement.

Obviously, Sony’s published patent applications do not necessarily mean that a commercial product will ever see the light of day.  However, it can be a good indicator of where Sony is spending its R&D dollars when it comes to virtual reality.  And with the timing of these multiple patent application filings, as well as the length and specificity of each application, it is not completely far-fetched that Sony has its own version of a ‘Powerglove’ in the works for the PSVR.