Patent Drafting Analysis of Google LLC’s AI-Guided Light-Emitting Interface System | US 11,500,477 B2
Patent Drafting Analysis of Google LLC's AI-Guided Light-Emitting Interface System | US 11,500,477 B2
A structural and strategic analysis of Google's granted patent covering claim architecture, drafting quality, critical gaps, and prosecution positioning for AI-directed physical-world light emission.
Spec Words
9,800
Across 6 sections
Draft now ↗
Total Claims
19
3 independent · 16 dependent
Draft now ↗
Figure Sheets
16
System architecture, device hardware, AI models, UI/light emission, data collection modes
Draft now ↗
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · · 12 min read Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Overview
Structural Overview
The detailed description dominates at approximately 63% of the total word count (~6,200 words), providing extensive narrative coverage of five distinct embodiment families — light-gaze indication, keyhole display, confidence graphics, docking, and data-collection modes — though the depth of hardware description is not uniformly reflected in claim scope. The claim set comprises 19 claims in total: 3 independent claims of apparatus (Claim 1), device (Claim 11), and method (Claim 16) types, supported by 16 dependent claims yielding a 5.33:1 dependent-to-independent ratio consistent with software/AI norms. Figure coverage spans 16 sheets with 24 individual figures across hardware, AI architecture, UI, and method flow, providing broad but not fully claim-mapped visual support.
Section Word Distribution
↗ Click bars to exploreFigure Inventory — 16 Sheets
| Figure | Description | Role |
|---|---|---|
| FIG. 1A | Block diagram of the overall computing system 100 showing user computing device 102, server computing system 130, training computing system 150, and network 180 with component labels including AI system, processors, memory, microphone, display, light-emitting device, and speaker.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 1B | Block diagram of computing device 10 showing multiple applications each with their own machine learning library and machine-learned model communicating with sensor(s), context manager, device state, and additional components.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 1C | Block diagram of computing device 50 showing a central intelligence layer with multiple models shared across applications, communicating via a central device data layer with sensors, context manager, device state, and additional components.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 2A | Block diagram of simplified AI system 200 showing an image input fed to a selection model 202 that outputs an attention output 206.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 2B | Block diagram of AI system 220 showing image input processed by object recognition model 228 producing recognition output 230 fed to selection model 222 outputting attention output 226.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 2C | Block diagram of AI system 250 showing machine-learned model 252 receiving an input 254 and generating both an output 256 and a confidence value 258.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 3 | Perspective view of computing device 300 with elongated cylindrical body 301 showing first portion 302, second portion 304 with movement arrow 306, camera 308 at first end 309, light-emitting device 310, microphone 312, and display 314 at second end 313.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 4A | Illustration of hand 416 holding computing device 400 emitting light 418 onto a flat scene with focus indicators 420, 422 and target indicator 424, showing the AI system's gaze direction.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 4B | Illustration of hand 416 holding computing device 400 emitting light 418 onto a scene 450 containing container 426, plant 428, and lamp 430, with focus indicators 420, 422 surrounding container 426 as the AI-selected subject.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 5A | Perspective view of elongated cylindrical computing device 500 with body 501 and display screen 514 displaying a confidence graphic.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 5B | Multiple cross-sectional views 550 showing four variants of confidence graphic shapes (552, 554, 556, 558) representing varying levels of AI confidence from single dot (high confidence) to numerous small circles (low/needs more data).Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 6A | Perspective view of computing device 600 in permissible collection mode showing body 601 with first portion 602 and second portion 604, camera 612, and display screen 610 with a graphic; region 605 is obscured.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 6B | Perspective view of computing device 600 in prohibited (hooded) collection mode showing second portion 604 slid to reveal previously obscured region 605; display screen 614 is off or blank.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 6C | Front view of computing system 650 in an extended state showing second portion 654 fully extended from first portion 652 with display screen 658 on the circumferential surface and movement arrows 656.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 6D | Front view of computing system 650 in retracted state showing second portion 654 retracted within first portion 652, obscuring display screen 658, representing the prohibited data collection mode.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 7A | Illustration of hand 716 holding computing device 700 with display screen 714 showing a virtual object 732 (text "ORDERI") in a keyhole interface with bidirectional arrow 734 indicating movement direction.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 7B | Simplified diagram showing display screen 714 (circle) with virtual object text "ORDERING GROCERIES NEXT MONTH" (732) extending beyond the screen and arrow 734 indicating movement to view more of the virtual object.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 8A | Perspective view of computing system 836 with computing device 800 and docking device 838 in an opened configuration showing base layer 840 and protruded regions 842, 844.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 8B | Perspective view of computing system 836 in closed configuration showing computing device 800 retained within docking device 838, with display screen 846 of docking device visible and display screen 814 of computing device proximate it.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 9A | Elongated computing device 900 shown horizontally with body 901 having first portion 902 and rotatable second portion 904 (rotation indicated by arrow 908), and display screen 914 on the circumferential surface.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 9B | Computing device 900 being held in hand 916 of a user showing how the circumferential display screen 914 is visible during use, with time and weather information displayed.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 10A | Perspective view of computing system 1000 with computing device 1002 and docking device 1004 in a folded first configuration, showing display screen 1012 spanning first portion 1008, second portion 1010, and middle portion 1006.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 10B | Perspective view of computing system 1000 with docking device 1004 in a flat/unfolded second configuration, attached along an edge of computing device body 1001, with display screen 1012 on outer surface.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 11A | Computing device 1100 in prohibited collection mode showing display screen 1106 turned off (blank), with body having first portion 1102, second portion 1101, and rotation indicator 1108.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 11B | Computing device 1100 in permissible collection mode showing display screen 1106 with a clearly displayed graphic indicating the device is permitted to collect information.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 11C | Computing device 1100 in an intermediate data collection mode showing display screen 1106 with a blurry or frosted appearance graphic indicating partial/conditional collection permissions.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 12 | Flow diagram of method 1200 with three steps: (1202) obtain image from camera, (1204) generate attention output describing scene region with subject, (1206) control light-emitting device to emit light onto or adjacent that region.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 13 | Flow diagram of method 1300 with three steps: (1302) receive data descriptive of virtual object with 3D location, (1304) display portion of virtual object on screen along longitudinal axis projection, (1306) update display in response to body movement to new pose.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 14 | Flow diagram of method 1400 with three steps: (1402) selectively collect information about surroundings, (1404) selectively switch between plurality of data collection modes, (1406) provide indication of current data collection mode.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Claims
Claim Architecture Analysis
The patent contains 3 independent claims covering a computing system apparatus (Claim 1), a hand-held device apparatus (Claim 11), and a computer-implemented method (Claim 16), providing a tripartite enforcement structure across system, device, and method types. The 16 dependent claims yield a 5.33:1 dependent-to-independent ratio, which is slightly above the software/AI norm of approximately 4–5:1 and reflects the breadth of optional features disclosed. Notably, Claims 1 and 11 both require a 'light-emitting device having an adjustable direction of emission' combined with focus indicators comprising 'a plurality of emitted laser beams,' anchoring the key differentiating technical features across apparatus-type claims.
Core inventive concept: The patent addresses the problem of AI systems lacking mechanisms to communicate their processing focus to users in the physical world. The solution, expressed across Claims 1, 11, and 16, is a computing system that generates an 'attention output' identifying a subject of AI processing operations and then adjusts the direction of emission of a light-emitting device to project light 'onto or adjacent the at least one region of the scene that includes the subject,' specifically using a 'plurality of focus indicators' comprising 'emitted laser beams' to indicate outer bounds of the AI-identified subject.
Independent Claim Dissection
| Claim | Preamble | Transition | Key Body Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim 1 | A computing system, | comprising: | camera; light-emitting device with adjustable direction of emission; AI system with one or more machine-learned models; one or more processors; non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions to: obtain a query from a user; obtain image of scene with plurality of objects; generate attention output based on query and image identifying subject responsive to query; adjust direction of emission such that light emits onto/adjacent region including subject; provide plurality of focus indicators (emitted laser beams) indicating outer bounds of subjectSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 11 | A hand-held computing device, the device | comprising: | elongated cylindrical body with first end and second end along longitudinal axis; camera adjacent first end; light-emitting device adjacent camera at first end with adjustable direction of emission; AI system with one or more machine-learned models; one or more processors; non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions to: obtain query from user; obtain image of scene with plurality of objects; generate attention output based on query and image identifying subject responsive to query; adjust direction of emission to emit light onto/adjacent region including subject; provide plurality of focus indicators (emitted laser beams) indicating outer bounds of subjectSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 16 | A computer-implemented method, the method | comprising: | obtaining a query from a user; obtaining image of scene with plurality of objects by camera; generating attention output by AI system based on query and image, identifying subject responsive to query selected from plurality of objects; adjusting direction of emission of light-emitting device to emit light onto/adjacent region including subject; providing plurality of focus indicators (emitted laser beams) indicating outer bounds of subjectSearch prior art ↗ |
Claim Dependency Tree
1 Computing system: camera + light-emitting device (adjustable emission) + AI system + processor generates attention output, adjusts light direction, provides laser-beam focus indicatorsSearch Claim 1 prior art ↗
2 Adds: AI system comprises machine-learned selection model receiving image and providing attention outputSearch in Eureka ↗
3 Adds: elongated cylindrical body housing camera, light-emitting device, AI system, processors, and non-transitory mediaSearch in Eureka ↗
4 Adds: machine-learned models comprise object recognition model; region includes at least one object recognized by that modelSearch in Eureka ↗
5 Adds: instructions further cause computing system to adjust direction of emission such that light continues to be emitted when light-emitting device is moved relative to the sceneSearch in Eureka ↗
6 Adds: docking device configured to wirelessly communicate with processors, the docking device comprising a display screenSearch in Eureka ↗
7 Adds: operations further include determining confidence value of attention output and providing confidence signal via display screen, vibratory signals, or auditory signalsSearch in Eureka ↗
8 Adds: light comprises one or more target indicators located on or near the subjectSearch in Eureka ↗
9 Adds: adjusting direction of emission comprises: when computing device is moved, direction is adjusted such that light continues emitting onto/adjacent region including subjectSearch in Eureka ↗
10 Adds: light comprises a target indicator associated with a central location of the subjectSearch in Eureka ↗
11 Hand-held device: elongated cylindrical body + camera at first end + light-emitting device (adjustable) at first end + AI system + processor generates attention output, adjusts light, provides laser-beam focus indicatorsSearch Claim 11 prior art ↗
12 Adds: cylindrical body has first and second portions; second portion moveable to switch between permissible and prohibited collection modes; operations include detecting movement and switching from prohibited to permissible modeSearch in Eureka ↗
13 Adds: elongated cylindrical body comprises two cylindrical portions of different diametersSearch in Eureka ↗
14 Adds: elongated cylindrical body is an outer shellSearch in Eureka ↗
15 Adds: further comprising a docking device configured to be coupled with the elongated cylindrical body by folding around itSearch in Eureka ↗
16 Method: obtain query from user; obtain image; generate attention output by AI system responsive to query; adjust emission direction of light-emitting device; provide laser-beam focus indicators indicating outer bounds of subjectSearch Claim 16 prior art ↗
17 Adds: determining confidence value associated with attention output; displaying confidence graphic with shape density, color combination, or shape movement characteristicSearch in Eureka ↗
18 Adds: query comprises a question; attention output answers that questionSearch in Eureka ↗
19 Adds: obtaining query comprises obtaining plurality of face images and processing with AI system to determine query based on lip movements of userSearch in Eureka ↗
| Metric | This Application | Software / AI Industry Norm |
|---|---|---|
| Total claims | 19 | 15 – 25 |
| Independent claim count | 3 | 1 – 4 |
| Dependent : Independent ratio | 5.33 : 1 | 4 – 8 : 1 |
| Method claims present? | Yes — Claim 16 | Common |
| System / apparatus claims? | Yes — Claims 1, 11 | Common |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Drafting Quality
Drafting Quality Signals
The claim set demonstrates deliberate tripartite enforcement structure across Claims 1, 11, and 16, with well-integrated hardware-rooted limitations (adjustable emission direction, laser beam focus indicators) that provide a meaningful §101 defense. However, the specification's extensive disclosure of additional features — including keyhole display, confidence graphics, and data collection mode switching — is not reflected in any independent claim, creating a significant vulnerability if Claims 1 and 11 are narrowed during any post-grant proceeding.
✅
Antecedent Basis
Antecedent basis is generally well-maintained throughout the claim set. Claim 1 introduces 'a camera,' 'a light-emitting device,' and 'an artificial intelligence system' in the preamble and all subsequent references to 'the camera,' 'the light-emitting device,' and 'the artificial intelligence system' are properly anteceded. Claim 9's reference to 'the computing device' and 'the direction of emission' correctly traces back to Claim 1's 'a light-emitting device having an adjustable direction of emission.' No orphaned 'the [element]' references were identified across dependent Claims 2–10 or 12–19.
✅
Spec–Claim Consistency
The core limitation of Claim 1 — generating an attention output and adjusting light emission direction — maps directly to FIG. 2A (selection model producing attention output 206), FIG. 4B (light 418 emitting onto scene 450 with container 426 as subject), and FIG. 12 (method steps 1202–1206). The 'plurality of focus indicators comprising emitted laser beams' limitation in Claims 1, 11, and 16 is supported by FIG. 4A showing focus indicators 420, 422 and target indicator 424, and described in the detailed description at column 18. However, the data collection mode limitation in Claim 12 relies primarily on FIGs. 6A–6D and 11A–11C with less direct paragraph-level cross-referencing in the claims themselves.
✅
Transition Word Usage
All three independent claims (1, 11, 16) use 'comprising' as the transition, which is the strategically optimal choice for this technology domain as it permits inclusion of unclaimed additional elements (e.g., additional sensors, displays, docking devices) without invalidating coverage. The use of 'comprising' in the preamble of Claim 16 — 'a computer-implemented method, the method comprising' — is appropriate and consistent with method claim norms. No use of the narrowing 'consisting of' or 'consisting essentially of' was identified anywhere in the claim set, which is correct given the multicomponent system being claimed.
⚠️
§112(f) Means-Plus-Function Risk
A potential §112(f) concern arises in Claim 7, which recites 'providing a confidence signal associated with the confidence value via at least one of a display screen, one or more vibratory signals, or one or more auditory signals' — the phrase 'one or more vibratory signals' and 'one or more auditory signals' are functional labels without structural recitation in the claim. While this phrasing does not use 'means for,' a court construing 'one or more vibratory signals' as purely functional could limit the claim to the structures disclosed in the specification (vibration motors, speakers). The specification at columns 8 and 20 provides some structural support, but the claim itself does not define the structure generating the signals.
✅
§101 Eligibility Risk
The independent claims carry meaningful §101 protection because they are anchored to concrete hardware: Claim 1 requires 'a camera,' 'a light-emitting device having an adjustable direction of emission,' and the specific physical act of emitting light 'onto or adjacent' a physical scene with 'a plurality of emitted laser beams.' This physical-world integration — controlling photonic emission in real space based on AI output — provides a strong argument under the machine-or-transformation test and distinguishes the claims from abstract idea analysis applied to purely software processes. The 'adjustable direction of emission' limitation further implies a physical actuator, strengthening the hardware tie-in at the claim level.
⚠️
Dependent Claim Fallback Quality
The dependent claim quality is mixed: Claims 5 and 9 add substantive and distinct fallback positions on light-tracking during device movement (a commercially important feature), and Claim 7 adds the confidence signal feature. However, Claims 13 (two cylindrical portions of different diameters) and 14 (cylindrical body is an outer shell) add purely structural/cosmetic limitations with limited licensing value as they do not add functional distinctions relative to Claim 11. Claims 8 and 10 both cover target indicators but introduce slight variations (on/near subject vs. central location), which is mildly redundant. The data collection mode limitation — a prominent specification feature spanning 8+ figures — appears only in Claim 12 as a dependent and is absent from any independent claim.
⚠️
Abstract Quality
An examiner reading only the abstract would identify the camera + light-emitting device + AI hardware components and the core 'emit light onto region including subject of processing operation' mechanism. However, the abstract does not mention the query-based operation ('obtain a query from a user'), which is a critical limitation distinguishing the granted claims from the prior art; the summary correctly includes this limitation but the abstract does not. The abstract also omits the 'plurality of focus indicators comprising emitted laser beams' requirement that forms a key structural limitation of all three independent claims, which could cause a prior art searcher to miss the precise scope of protection.
✅
Figure Support Quality
The figure set provides strong support for the core claim limitations: FIG. 4A/4B directly supports the 'adjustable direction of emission,' 'focus indicators,' and 'target indicator' limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 10; FIG. 2A/2B supports the 'attention output' and 'machine-learned selection model' limitations of Claims 1 and 2; and FIG. 12 provides method flow support for Claim 16. The 'plurality of emitted laser beams' is illustrated by the focus indicators 420, 422 in FIG. 4A, though the relationship could be more explicitly labeled. The confidence graphic limitations of Claim 7 and 17 are well-supported by FIGs. 5A and 5B showing the confidence graphic display on device 500.
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Scorecard
Strategic Intent Scorecard
Multi-dimensional assessment of this application's patent strategy quality, based on claim structure, specification depth, and prosecution positioning.
Claim Breadth
3.5
Prosecution Defensibility
3.8
Spec–Claim Consistency
4
Dependent Claim Coverage
3.2
Claim Type Diversity
3.5
Figure Support Quality
4.2
Key observation: Figure Support Quality scores highest (4.2/5) because 16 sheets and 28 figures (including FIGs. 2A, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 12) map directly to the key structural limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 16, providing robust written description support that would be difficult to challenge in IPR. Dependent Claim Coverage scores lowest (3.2/5) because the substantial data collection mode disclosure — spanning FIGs. 6A through 11C and approximately 2,500 words of detailed description — is relegated entirely to one dependent claim (Claim 12) rather than anchoring an independent claim or separate independent claim family, leaving the patentee unable to enforce this feature without also proving all limitations of Claim 11. Practitioners filing continuations should prioritize elevating the data collection mode switching mechanism to an independent claim to capture this commercially significant feature.
See how your own draft compares — Open Eureka IP Drafting →
Critical Gaps
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
A senior-attorney lens on the three highest-priority structural weaknesses — what each exposes in prosecution and litigation, and what a stronger filing would have done differently.
🔒
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
See the full attorney-level analysis of what this application leaves unprotected — and how to draft it more defensively for your own filings.
Data collection mode not independently claimed No CRM independent claim filed Keyhole display interface entirely unclaimed
Unlock Full Analysis — Free Frequently asked questions
US 11,500,477 B2 — key questions answered
Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them from patent data instantly. Search in Eureka
Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by PatSnap Eureka AI based on publicly available patent data from the USPTO. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Patent data may be subject to change as prosecution progresses. Scores and assessments reflect automated analysis and may not capture all relevant legal or technical nuances. Always consult a qualified patent attorney for formal legal opinions on patentability, freedom to operate, or infringement.
Ask anything about this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard