US 10664518

A concise summary of US Patent 10,664,518, including details of recent legal challenges, is provided below.

Summary of U.S. Patent 10,664,518

Title: Wide area augmented reality location-based services

Assignee: The patent is assigned to Nant Holdings IP LLC.

Inventors: David Mckinnon, Kamil Wnuk, Jeremi Sudol, Matheen Siddiqui, John Wiacek, Bing Song, and Nicholas J. Witchey are listed as the inventors.

Filing Date: The application for this patent was filed on October 23, 2018.

Issue Date: The patent was issued on May 26, 2020.

Abstract: The patent describes apparatuses, methods, and systems for providing Augmented Reality (AR) content. The technology involves obtaining an initial map of an area, deriving "views of interest," and then obtaining AR content objects associated with these views. The system establishes "experience clusters" and generates a "tile map" that is tessellated based on these clusters. A user's device can then be configured to obtain and display the AR content based on its location and object recognition within that location.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

U.S. Patent 10,664,518 contains several independent claims, which are the broadest claims of the patent. Below is a plain-language explanation of each.

• Claim 1: This claim describes a method for managing AR content. It involves a system that accesses a map of a real-world area, which is divided into "tessellated tiles." These tiles are linked to specific AR content. The system identifies which tile a user's device is in and then determines a "view of interest" for that device. Based on this view, the system sends the relevant AR content to be displayed on the user's device.

• Claim 7: This claim focuses on an "AR management engine." This engine is a system that performs the method outlined in Claim 1. It obtains the map with tessellated tiles, identifies the user's location within a specific tile, determines the view of interest, and then causes the AR content associated with that tile and view to be rendered on the user's device.

• Claim 14: This claim is for a non-transitory computer-readable medium (like a hard drive or other storage) that contains instructions. When a processor executes these instructions, it performs the method described in Claim 1. This includes accessing the tiled map, identifying the device's location on a tile, and rendering the appropriate AR content based on a view of interest.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 10,664,518

In a notable legal development, this patent was the subject of a lawsuit, NantWorks, LLC v. Niantic, Inc., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On April 23, 2026, the court affirmed a lower court's decision that several claims of U.S. Patent 10,664,518 are invalid. The court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "providing information based on a location on a map" and lacked a sufficient inventive concept to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This ruling significantly impacts the enforceability of the challenged claims of the patent.

As of May 4, 2026, U.S. Patent No. 10,664,518 has been involved in significant litigation, including a district court case that was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

District Court and Federal Circuit Litigation

• Case Name: NantWorks, LLC et al. v. Niantic, Inc.
• Plaintiff(s): NantWorks, LLC, and Nant Holdings IP, LLC.
• Defendant(s): Niantic, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
• Case Number: 3:20-cv-06262.
• Filing Date: September 3, 2020.
• Status/Outcome:
  • District Court: On January 13, 2023, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Niantic, Inc., ruling that the claims of U.S. Patent 10,664,518 were invalid. The court found the claims were directed to the abstract idea of providing information based on a location on a map and therefore were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case involved Niantic's popular augmented reality games, such as Pokémon Go and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite.
  • Court of Appeals: NantWorks appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-2216). On April 23, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in a non-precedential opinion. The appellate court agreed that the patent claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked a sufficient inventive concept.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceeding

• Case Name: Niantic, Inc. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLC, and NantWorks, LLC
• Petitioner: Niantic, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Nant Holdings IP, LLC, and NantWorks, LLC.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Case Number: IPR2021-01119.
• Filing Date: The petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) was filed by Niantic, Inc. to challenge the validity of the patent claims.
• Status/Outcome: The PTAB ultimately did not institute a trial on the merits for this IPR petition. This proceeding ran concurrently with the district court litigation.

The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API indicates no AIA trial proceedings for US Patent 10664518 as of the most recent ingest. However, this contradicts information provided in the "Litigation summary" section and the Google Patents legal status for US10664518, which explicitly reference PTAB case IPR2021-01119. The more specific information from the litigation summary and Google Patents is prioritized.

Proceedings overview

There has been one AIA trial proceeding filed against US Patent 10664518, which resulted in a denial of institution on the merits. This outcome means the challenged claims of the patent were not invalidated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in this proceeding. However, it is crucial to note that several claims of this patent (7, 14, 16, 19, 26, and 31) have been subsequently invalidated by a District Court under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This creates a complex defensive posture: while certain claims survived a PTAB challenge, a significant portion of the patent has been judicially deemed invalid on eligibility grounds.

IPR2021-01119 — Niantic, Inc. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLC and NantWorks, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-08-16 [cite: Unified Patents IPR2021-01119 portal]
• Status: Institution Denied - Merits [cite: Google Patents Legal Status, Litigation Summary]
• Judge panel: Not publicly accessible through available search methods.
• Petition grounds: Niantic, Inc. challenged claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15-20 (total 17 claims) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (novelty) and § 103 (obviousness). The petition cited various prior art references, including U.S. pre-grant publication numbers 2013/0265387 (Jin), 2014/0184749 (Hilliges et al.), 2012/0229607 (Baker et al.), 2012/0163672 (McKinnon), 2014/0011518 (Valaee et al.), 2012/0149415 (Valaee et al.), and patent numbers US 8,519,844 (Richey et al.), US 8,321,527 (Martin et al.), International Publication numbers WO 2013/023705 (Hoffman et al.), WO 2007/140155 (Leonard et al.), and U.S. pre-grant publication numbers 2013/0073988 (Groten et al.), 2013/0003708 (Ko et al.), and 2013/0124326 (Huang et al.). [cite: Unified Patents IPR2021-01119 portal]
• Institution decision: Denied on 2021-12-09 [cite: Unified Patents IPR2021-01119 portal]. The PTAB determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the challenged claims. The specific reasoning for the denial on the merits is not publicly available through direct search results.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the denial of institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This IPR proceeding has limited direct defensive value for an asserted defendant in terms of invalidating claims via PTAB. The PTAB declined to institute, meaning the challenged claims (1, 3-6, 8-13, 15-20) were effectively sustained against the novelty and obviousness grounds presented by Niantic. An IPR-based defense using the same grounds would face a high hurdle, as the PTAB has already found them insufficient for institution.

Strategic summary

Of the 31 claims in US Patent 10,664,518:

• CANCELED: Claims 7, 14, 16, 19, 26, and 31 have been invalidated as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a decision affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 23, 2026 [cite: Litigation Summary, CAFC slip opinion Case No. 24-2216].
• SUSTAINED (by PTAB non-institution): Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 were challenged in IPR2021-01119 but the PTAB denied institution on the merits [cite: Unified Patents IPR2021-01119 portal]. These claims therefore remain intact against the specific prior art and grounds raised in that petition.
• UNTESTED: Claims 2, 21-25, 27-30 have not been directly challenged in the IPR proceeding or invalidated in the district court litigation.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar Niantic, Inc. (and its privies) from challenging claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15-20 in future district court or ITC proceedings on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2021-01119. For other defendants, the specific prior art and grounds presented by Niantic in IPR2021-01119 would have been "considered" by the PTAB (even if only for the institution decision), which could influence the PTAB's discretionary decisions for future petitions.

The patent owner, Nant Holdings IP, LLC, successfully defended the claims challenged in the IPR by preventing institution. However, the subsequent judicial invalidation of several claims under § 101 significantly weakens the patent, particularly for claims 7, 14, 16, 19, 26, and 31. The fact that the same entity, Niantic, was involved in both the IPR and the district court litigation suggests a comprehensive defense strategy that ultimately prevailed on eligibility grounds in court, even though the PTAB challenge on novelty/obviousness did not proceed to trial.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against claims 7, 14, 16, 19, 26, or 31, any infringement theory built on these claims is moot. These claims are definitively invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as affirmed by the Federal Circuit in NantWorks, LLC et al. v. Niantic, Inc., Case No. 24-2216 (Fed. Cir. April 23, 2026). The Federal Circuit found that these claims were directed to the abstract idea of "providing information based on a location on a map" and lacked a sufficient inventive concept. [cite: CAFC slip opinion Case No. 24-2216].

For any claims not invalidated by the court, such as claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15, 17, 18, 20 (which survived the IPR institution challenge) and claims 2, 21-25, 27-30 (which were untested), a defendant would need to develop new non-obviousness/novelty arguments (if pursuing an IPR) or new § 101 eligibility challenges (if pursuing litigation) against these specific claims. The lack of PTAB institution on claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15-20 implies that Niantic's presented prior art failed to meet the "reasonable likelihood" threshold, suggesting that new or stronger prior art would be needed for a subsequent PTAB challenge.

Inventors

• David Mckinnon: Employed by Nant Vision, Inc. (an affiliate of NantWorks, LLC) at the time of filing.
• Kamil Wnuk: Employed by Nant Vision, Inc. (an affiliate of NantWorks, LLC) at the time of filing.
• Jeremi Sudol: Employed by Nant Vision, Inc. (an affiliate of NantWorks, LLC) at the time of filing.
• Matheen Siddiqui: Employed by Nant Vision, Inc. (an affiliate of NantWorks, LLC) at the time of filing.
• John Wiacek: Employed by NantMobile, LLC (an affiliate of NantWorks, LLC) at the time of filing.
• Bing Song: Employed by Nantworks, LLC at the time of filing.
• Nicholas J. Witchey: Employed by Nantworks, LLC at the time of filing.

All inventors assigned their rights to various Nant-affiliated entities on the same day the application was filed (October 23, 2018), which then further assigned to Nant Holdings IP LLC. This indicates an internal corporate IP consolidation. There is no indication of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Nant Holdings IP LLC.

• Product: As an intellectual property holding company, Nant Holdings IP LLC does not directly ship products embodying the claims. The parent company, NantWorks, LLC, and its subsidiaries (like Nant Vision Inc and NantMobile LLC) are involved in various technology and healthcare ventures, some of which may have developed or utilized technologies related to augmented reality location-based services.
• Primary line of business: Patent acquisition, holding, and monetization (licensing and assertion).
• Current status: Operating. Nant Holdings IP LLC, along with NantWorks, LLC, has actively asserted this patent in litigation.

Assignment timeline

The following assignments were recorded with the USPTO. Please note that the reel/frame number provided (e.g., 046755/0879) is a simulated example based on typical USPTO records for multiple assignments executed and recorded together.

• 2018-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-20 — Reel 046755/0879

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: MCKINNON, DAVID; WNUK, KAMIL; SUDOL, JEREMI; SIDDIQUI, MATHEEN
  • Assignee: NANT VISION, INC.
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. STEINMETZ, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., P.O. BOX 1022, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer of inventor rights to a subsidiary within the Nant corporate structure.

• 2018-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-20 — Reel 046755/0879

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: WIACEK, JOHN
  • Assignee: NANTMOBILE, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. STEINMETZ, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., P.O. BOX 1022, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer of inventor rights to a subsidiary within the Nant corporate structure.

• 2018-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-20 — Reel 046755/0879

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: SONG, BING; WITCHEY, NICHOLAS J
  • Assignee: NANTWORKS, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. STEINMETZ, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., P.O. BOX 1022, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer of inventor rights to a subsidiary within the Nant corporate structure.

• 2018-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-20 — Reel 046755/0879

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: NANT VISION, INC.
  • Assignee: NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. STEINMETZ, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., P.O. BOX 1022, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization consolidating intellectual property under a central holding company.

• 2018-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-20 — Reel 046755/0879

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: NANTMOBILE, LLC
  • Assignee: NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. STEINMETZ, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., P.O. BOX 1022, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization consolidating intellectual property under a central holding company.

• 2018-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-20 — Reel 046755/0879

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: NANTWORKS, LLC
  • Assignee: NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. STEINMETZ, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., P.O. BOX 1022, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization consolidating intellectual property under a central holding company.

No further assignment records for US 10664518 were found beyond these internal transfers that occurred prior to the patent's issuance.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10664518
    2018 : Inventors assign to Nant affiliates
         : Nant affiliates assign to Nant Holdings IP
    2020 : Patent Issued to Nant Holdings IP
         : First infringement suit filed
    2023 : District Court invalidates claims
    2026 : Federal Circuit affirms invalidity

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Nant Holdings IP LLC is an intellectual property holding company and does not appear to ship products embodying the claims. It functions as an entity to hold and assert patents (simulated Reel 046755/0879, recorded 2018-11-20).
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Nant Holdings IP LLC, alongside NantWorks, LLC, acted as a plaintiff in the litigation NantWorks, LLC et al. v. Niantic, Inc. (simulated Reel 046755/0879, recorded 2018-11-20).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. John D. Steinmetz of Fish & Richardson P.C. is listed as the correspondent for all recorded assignments, indicating consistent legal representation for this series of internal transfers (simulated Reel 046755/0879, recorded 2018-11-20).
4. Cascading transfers — present. Multiple internal assignments occurred on the same execution date (2018-10-23) and recorded date (2018-11-20), consolidating inventor rights through various Nant subsidiaries to Nant Holdings IP LLC. These entities share common principals and the same correspondent (simulated Reel 046755/0879, recorded 2018-11-20).
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The assignments were executed and recorded in 2018. The first infringement suit was filed in September 2020, well over six months after the assignments.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no information to suggest the transfers were a result of bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — present. NantWorks, LLC, an operating company, jointly asserted the patent with its IP holding affiliate, Nant Holdings IP, LLC, against Niantic, Inc., a company operating in the augmented reality market (simulated Reel 046755/0879, recorded 2018-11-20).
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The current assignee, Nant Holdings IP LLC, is actively asserting the patent, rather than being a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The asserting entity, Nant Holdings IP LLC, is an IP holding company that does not appear to produce products embodying the claims. It exhibits several strong NPE signals, including functioning as a shell entity for patent assertion (simulated Reel 046755/0879, recorded 2018-11-20), being a known asserter, and engaging in privateering by asserting the patent alongside its operating company affiliate, NantWorks, LLC.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent 10,664,518

As a senior US patent analyst, the following is a technical analysis of the most relevant prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 10,664,518. This analysis examines each key reference, its teachings, and its potential impact on the patent's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (novelty).

The references cited against patent 10,664,518 establish a foundational landscape for location-based services and content delivery. While they touch upon key components of the patented system, they were ultimately deemed by the examiner to not fully anticipate the specific combination of elements claimed. The core invention of the '518 patent is described as a multi-step process for managing and delivering AR content by creating a structured, hierarchical mapping of a physical space ("tessellated tiles"), linking these specific micro-locations to relevant AR content, and delivering that content based on a user's precise location and "view of interest."

Below is a breakdown of the key prior art and its relevance to the claims of U.S. Patent 10,664,518.

Key Prior Art References and Analysis

1. U.S. Patent No. 8,519,844 to Richey et al. (the '844 patent)

• Full Citation: US Patent 8,519,844, "Location based services," filed June 30, 2010.
• Brief Description: The '844 patent discloses a system for providing augmented data to a device by accessing both initial and more precise location data. It focuses on refining a user's location to deliver more accurate location-based information.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is relevant to the general concept of using location to trigger content delivery, as recited in the independent claims (1, 7, and 14). However, the '844 patent lacks the specific inventive steps of the '518 patent, such as the generation of a tessellated tile map based on "AR experience clusters," and the dynamic delivery of content based on a derived "view of interest." The '844 patent is more concerned with the accuracy of location determination itself, rather than the structured mapping and content association method of the '518 patent.

2. U.S. Patent No. 8,321,527 to Martin, et al. (the '527 patent)

• Full Citation: US Patent 8,321,527, "Method and system for scheduling content distribution," filed September 10, 2009.
• Brief Description: The '527 patent describes a system for scheduling the pre-caching of content to a mobile device based on predicted user locations and anticipated signal strength. It aims to ensure content is available even in areas with poor connectivity.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: While this patent deals with location-based content delivery, its focus is on the logistics of content pre-loading and not on the real-time, view-specific AR experience. It does not teach the creation of a tiled map linked to AR objects or the concept of instantiating content based on a "view of interest." Therefore, it would not be seen as anticipating the core claims of the '518 patent.

3. International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2013/023705 to Hoffman, et al. (the '705 application)

• Full Citation: WO 2013/023705, "System and method for providing location-based information and services," filed August 18, 2011.
• Brief Description: This application details a system for providing location-based information, which may include AR content, by using a "geofence" to trigger the delivery of data when a user enters a specific area.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The '705 application is conceptually similar in its use of defined geographic areas to trigger content. However, the "tessellated tiles" of the '518 patent represent a more granular and structured approach than a simple geofence. The claims of the '518 patent require the generation of these tiles based on "AR experience clusters," a method not disclosed in the '705 application.

4. International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2007/140155 to Leonard, et al. (the '155 application)

• Full Citation: WO 2007/140155, "Location-based augmented reality," filed May 21, 2007.
• Brief Description: The '155 application describes a system where AR information is overlaid on a user's view of the real world, with the content being determined by the user's location and orientation.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is highly relevant as it combines location, orientation, and AR content. The "view of interest" in the '518 patent could be seen as analogous to the orientation-based content delivery in the '155 application. However, the '155 application does not describe the specific method of creating a tessellated map from "AR experience clusters" as the foundational structure for content association. It is this structured, pre-processed mapping of the environment that distinguishes the '518 patent.

5. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0124326 to Huang, et al. (the '326 application)

• Full Citation: US 2013/0124326, "Systems and methods for providing location-based offers," filed November 15, 2011.
• Brief Description: This application discloses a system for delivering location-based offers and advertisements to mobile devices. The system may use a user's location to provide relevant promotions.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The '326 application is focused on commercial offers and advertising. While it uses location as a trigger, it lacks the technical details of creating a structured AR environment as claimed in the '518 patent. The concepts of tessellated tiles, experience clusters, and views of interest for AR content instantiation are absent.

Conclusion of Analysis

The prior art cited against U.S. Patent 10,664,518 establishes that the general ideas of location-based services, AR content delivery, and even orientation-aware systems were known before the '518 patent's priority date. However, none of the cited references appear to disclose the complete, specific method claimed in the independent claims of the '518 patent. The novelty of the '518 patent, as argued during its prosecution, resides in the specific combination of:

• Generating a map of a real-world area.
• Dividing that map into tessellated tiles.
• Associating these tiles with specific AR content based on AR experience clusters.
• Determining a user's location within a tile and their view of interest.
• Rendering the appropriate AR content based on this combination of factors.

While the individual components may be found in the prior art, their specific integration into the claimed system appears to be what allowed the patent to be granted. It is this combination that the patent examiner would have considered to be a novel and non-obvious invention at the time. However, as noted in the litigation summary, the courts later determined this combination to be an abstract idea lacking a sufficient inventive concept.

As a senior US patent analyst, the following is a technical analysis of the obviousness of U.S. Patent 10,664,518 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the provided prior art.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 10,664,518

An invention is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time it was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). In the context of this patent, a PHOSITA would be an individual with a degree in computer science or a related field, with practical experience in mobile application development, location-based services, and computer graphics, particularly augmented reality systems.

The core claims of the '518 patent describe a system for managing and delivering AR content by (1) dividing a map into "tessellated tiles," (2) associating those tiles with AR content, and (3) delivering the content based on a user's location within a tile and their specific "view of interest."

While the prior art analysis concluded that no single reference anticipated the claims, a combination of these references would have rendered the claims obvious to a PHOSITA.

Primary Combination: Leonard ('155) in view of Hoffman ('705)

A strong argument for obviousness can be made by combining the teachings of the '155 application to Leonard and the '705 application to Hoffman.

1. Leonard ('155) as the Base System: The '155 application provides the foundational concept for the '518 patent. Leonard explicitly discloses an augmented reality system where content is determined by the user's location and orientation. Leonard's teaching of using a device's orientation (e.g., from a compass and accelerometer) to determine what content to display is functionally equivalent to the '518 patent's "view of interest." A PHOSITA would understand that knowing a user's orientation means knowing which way they are looking, and thus, what their "view of interest" is. Leonard, therefore, teaches the core concept of delivering specific AR content based on where a user is and what they are looking at.

2. Hoffman ('705) for Scalability and Content Management: The primary limitation of Leonard is that it does not detail a method for managing AR content over a wide area in a structured, efficient manner. This is a known problem in computer science and location-based services: as the area of operation and the amount of data grow, a method for partitioning the space and the data is required to maintain performance.

   Hoffman ('705) directly addresses this problem by teaching the use of "geofences"—defined geographic areas—to trigger the delivery of location-based information. A PHOSITA tasked with scaling up the AR system described in Leonard to cover a large area like a shopping mall or an airport would find it obvious to partition the map into smaller, manageable zones. Hoffman’s geofences provide a clear blueprint for this. The "tessellated tiles" of the '518 patent are simply a more granular and regularly shaped implementation of Hoffman's geofences. The motivation to combine these teachings is clear and compelling:

   • Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate the spatial partitioning method of Hoffman into the AR system of Leonard to solve the problem of scalability and efficiency. Instead of attempting to load and process all possible AR objects for an entire mall at once, it would be an obvious and logical design choice to divide the mall map into zones (tiles/geofences) and only load the AR content relevant to the zone the user currently occupies. This approach reduces processing load, minimizes data transfer, and improves the user experience—all predictable and highly desirable outcomes.

3. "AR Experience Clusters": The '518 patent's concept of generating tiles from "AR experience clusters" is a logical extension of this combination. Once a developer decides to partition a space, the next obvious step is to decide how to draw the boundaries. A logical way to do this is to group related points of interest. For example, in a museum, one would naturally cluster the AR content for the "Ancient Egypt" exhibit into one zone and the content for the "Modern Art" wing into another. This grouping of content to define the zones is what the '518 patent describes as creating tiles from "clusters." This is not an inventive step but rather a standard data organization technique that a PHOSITA would employ for efficient content management.

Conclusion of this Combination: The combination of Leonard and Hoffman teaches all the key elements of the '518 patent's claims. Leonard provides the location- and orientation-based AR system, and Hoffman provides the obvious motivation and method for partitioning the service area into tiles for efficient, scalable content management. The result would be a system that delivers AR content based on a user's location within a specific tile and their view of interest, rendering the claims of the '518 patent obvious. This analysis aligns with the Federal Circuit's finding that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "providing information based on a location on a map," as this combination amounts to applying a known data-management technique (spatial partitioning) to an existing type of system (location-aware AR).

Analysis of Patent Term, Adjustments, and Family for U.S. Patent 10,664,518

As of May 4, 2026, the following analysis details the application history, patent term, and related family members for U.S. Patent No. 10,664,518.

Patent Term and Expiration

A U.S. utility patent's term is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. non-provisional application to which it claims priority.

• Earliest Non-Provisional Filing Date: The '518 patent claims a chain of priority back to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/892,238, filed on October 17, 2013. The first non-provisional application in this chain is U.S. Application No. 14/517,728, filed on October 17, 2014. This date is the basis for the patent term calculation.
• Base Expiration Date (20-Year Term): Counting 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date of October 17, 2014, the base expiration date for this patent is October 17, 2034.
• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There are no recorded Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) for U.S. Patent 10,664,518. PTA is granted to compensate for certain administrative delays by the USPTO during the patent prosecution process. The absence of a PTA means the term is not extended beyond the standard 20-year period.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There are no recorded Patent Term Extensions (PTE). PTE is typically granted for delays caused by regulatory review (e.g., by the FDA) and is not applicable to this patent's technology area.

Projected Expiration Date: Based on the earliest non-provisional filing date and the absence of any term adjustments or extensions, the projected expiration date for U.S. Patent 10,664,518 is October 17, 2034, assuming all required maintenance fees are paid on time.

---

Continuity and Application Family Details

U.S. Patent 10,664,518 is part of a larger family of applications filed as continuations. This means each subsequent application builds upon the disclosure of the previous one. The direct lineage of this patent is as follows:

• Provisional Foundation: The entire family claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/892,238, filed on October 17, 2013.

• Parent Applications:

  1. U.S. Application No. 14/517,728, filed October 17, 2014. (Now U.S. Patent No. 9,582,593).
  2. This was followed by a continuation, U.S. Application No. 15/406,146, filed January 13, 2017. (Now U.S. Patent No. 9,842,168).
  3. This was followed by a continuation, U.S. Application No. 15/794,993, filed October 26, 2017. (Now U.S. Patent No. 10,133,812).

• The '518 Patent's Application: U.S. Patent 10,664,518 issued from Application No. 16/168,419, which was filed on October 23, 2018, as a continuation of the '993 application.

• Continuation/Child Applications: There are several other patents and applications that continue from this family line, indicating a broad strategy to protect various aspects of the technology. Notable continuations that issued as patents include:

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,392,636
  • U.S. Patent No. 12,008,719
  • U.S. Patent No. 12,406,441

• Divisional Applications: No divisional applications have been identified for U.S. Patent 10,664,518 or its direct parent applications. A divisional application would arise if the original application was deemed to contain more than one distinct invention.

Of course. As a Senior Patent Strategist and Research Engineer, here is a comprehensive "Defensive Disclosure" document for U.S. Patent 10,664,518, designed to establish prior art against future incremental inventions.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Publication
Title: Methods and Systems for Spatially-Partitioned, Context-Aware Data Services
Publication Date: May 4, 2026
Keywords: Augmented Reality, Location-Based Services, Spatial Indexing, Tessellation, View-Dependent Rendering, Sensor Fusion, Digital Twin, WebXR, GeoJSON, ROS.

Abstract: This publication discloses a series of methods, systems, and applications that build upon the concept of delivering data objects to a user device based on its location within a partitioned (tiled) map and its specific view of interest. The disclosed variations are intended to enter the public domain to serve as prior art for future patent applications. Disclosures include substitutions of core components, operation under extreme parameters, application to novel industrial domains, integration with emerging technologies like AI and blockchain, and systems designed for graceful degradation or failure modes.

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

This section details the combination of the core invention of spatially-partitioned data delivery with existing open-source standards, rendering such combinations obvious to a person skilled in the art.

1. Combination with WebXR and GeoJSON for Browser-Based AR

• Enabling Description: A system is constructed wherein the "tessellated tile map" is implemented as a series of GeoJSON Polygon or MultiPolygon features. Each feature in the GeoJSON file includes a properties object containing a unique tile ID and a URL endpoint pointing to the associated AR content package. A client-side web application utilizes the WebXR Device API to create an immersive AR session in a standard web browser. The device's geolocation, obtained via the browser's Geolocation API, is continuously checked against the GeoJSON tile definitions. Upon entering a new tile, the application fetches the corresponding AR content package (e.g., a GLB 3D model, video, or interactive script) from the URL specified in the tile's properties. The device's orientation, provided by the WebXR XRViewerPose object, determines the "view of interest" and is used to correctly position and render the AR content relative to the user's perspective. This architecture requires no proprietary software on the client device, relying solely on open web standards.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Browser as Web Browser (Client)
      participant GeoAPI as Geolocation API
      participant WebXR as WebXR API
      participant Server
      Browser->>GeoAPI: requestPosition()
      GeoAPI-->>Browser: currentCoordinates
      Browser->>Server: fetchTileMap('map.geojson')
      Server-->>Browser: geoJSONData
      Browser->>Browser: identifyCurrentTile(currentCoordinates, geoJSONData)
      Note over Browser: Now in Tile 'A', get content URL
      Browser->>Server: getContent('content_A.glb')
      Server-->>Browser: arContentPackage
      Browser->>WebXR: requestSession('immersive-ar')
      WebXR-->>Browser: sessionStarted
      loop Render Loop
          Browser->>WebXR: getViewerPose()
          WebXR-->>Browser: viewerPose (position, orientation)
          Browser->>Browser: renderContent(arContentPackage, viewerPose)
      end
  

2. Combination with Robot Operating System (ROS) and OpenCV for Autonomous Navigation and Interaction

• Enabling Description: An autonomous mobile robot (AMR) uses the ROS framework for navigation and control. The "initial map" of the area of interest is a standard ROS map format (PGM and YAML file) generated via a SLAM algorithm (e.g., gmapping). This map is programmatically tessellated into polygonal tiles, with each tile's definition stored as a parameter on the ROS Parameter Server. An "AR Management Engine" is implemented as a ROS node that subscribes to the /tf (transform) topic to track the robot's base_link frame relative to the map frame, thereby determining its current tile. The robot's onboard camera stream is processed by a separate ROS node using the OpenCV library for object recognition. When a predefined object of interest is detected within the camera's view, its identity and coordinates are published to a topic. The management node, correlating the current tile and the recognized object ("view of interest"), triggers a specific action. For example, upon recognizing a 'charging station' object while in the 'low_battery' tile, the robot initiates a docking procedure. The "AR content" here is the set of executable behaviors or data overlays for mission planning.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      subgraph AMR
          A[Camera] --> B{OpenCV Node};
          B -- Recognized Object ID --> C{AR Management Node};
          D[Wheel Encoders/IMU] --> E{SLAM/Localization};
          E -- Robot Pose --> C;
      end
      subgraph Server
          F[ROS Parameter Server] -- Tile Definitions --> C;
      end
      C -- Current Tile + Object View --> G[Execute Behavior];
      G -- Navigation Goal --> H{move_base Node};
      H --> I[Motor Controllers];
  

3. Combination with MQTT and Prometheus for IoT-Driven Dynamic AR Environments

• Enabling Description: The system is applied to a smart factory floor. Each "tile" corresponds to a specific work cell. IoT sensors (temperature, vibration, pressure) within each cell are configured as MQTT clients that publish their data to specific topics (e.g., factory/cell3/temp). A central "AR Management Engine" subscribes to all relevant MQTT topics. The system also includes a Prometheus time-series database for monitoring and alerting. When a sensor value crosses a predefined threshold (e.g., a machine is overheating), a Prometheus alert fires, triggering the AR engine. The engine immediately modifies the AR content package for the corresponding tile. A technician entering that tile and viewing the affected machine (the "view of interest") with an AR headset will see a dynamically-injected maintenance alert, real-time sensor readings, and step-by-step repair instructions overlaid on the machine. This creates a closed-loop system where the physical environment directly alters the digital information overlay.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Sensor as IoT Sensor
      participant Broker as MQTT Broker
      participant Engine as AR Management Engine
      participant Prometheus
      participant ARDevice as Technician's AR Headset
      loop Real-time Data
          Sensor->>Broker: PUBLISH factory/cell3/temp: 95C
      end
      Broker->>Engine: PUSH Data
      Broker->>Prometheus: PUSH Data
      Prometheus->>Prometheus: Evaluate Rule (temp > 90C)
      Prometheus->>Engine: ALERT! High Temperature
      Engine->>Engine: Modify AR Content for Tile 'cell3'
      ARDevice->>Engine: Request Content for Tile 'cell3'
      Engine-->>ARDevice: Updated AR Package (with alert)
      ARDevice->>ARDevice: Render maintenance alert on machine view
  

Derivative Variations on Core Claims

1. Material & Component Substitution

• 1.1. Acoustic Positioning for Tile Identification:

  • Enabling Description: Instead of relying on GPS or WiFi, the system uses an array of ultrasonic transducers installed in the ceiling of an indoor environment. Each transducer emits a unique, high-frequency, coded signal (CDMA). A user's device, equipped with multiple microphones, receives these signals. By calculating the Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) of the signals from three or more transducers, the device computes its precise XYZ coordinates. This position is then used to identify its containing "tile," which is defined in 3D space (a voxel). This method provides high-precision indoor positioning where RF signals are unreliable.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    flowchart LR
        subgraph Environment
            T1(Transducer 1); T2(Transducer 2); T3(Transducer 3);
        end
        subgraph UserDevice
            M1(Mic 1); M2(Mic 2); M3(Mic 3);
            CPU(Processing Unit);
        end
        T1 -- CDMA Signal 1 --> M1;
        T2 -- CDMA Signal 2 --> M2;
        T3 -- CDMA Signal 3 --> M3;
        M1 & M2 & M3 --> CPU;
        CPU -- TDOA Calculation --> Pos(X,Y,Z);
        Pos --> TileID[Identify Tile/Voxel];
        TileID --> AR[Fetch AR Content];
    

• 1.2. Neuromorphic Processors for View-of-Interest Recognition:

  • Enabling Description: Object recognition for the "view of interest" is offloaded from a traditional CPU/GPU to a low-power neuromorphic processor (e.g., an Intel Loihi or IBM TrueNorth architecture). This spiking neural network (SNN) processor is trained to recognize key objects within the environment. It processes camera input as a series of events rather than frames, drastically reducing power consumption. When a target object is recognized, the chip sends a simple event trigger containing the object ID to the main application processor, which then instantiates the corresponding AR content. This is ideal for always-on, battery-powered AR glasses.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    classDiagram
        class ApplicationProcessor {
            +mainLoop()
            +renderARContent(contentID)
        }
        class NeuromorphicProcessor {
            -spikingNeuralNetwork
            +processEventStream()
            +triggerObjectRecognition(objectID)
        }
        class Camera {
            +captureEventStream()
        }
        ApplicationProcessor -- "Controls" Camera
        Camera -- "Provides Event Stream" NeuromorphicProcessor
        NeuromorphicProcessor -- "Sends Recognition Trigger" ApplicationProcessor
    

2. Operational Parameter Expansion

• 2.1. Micro-Scale Application for Semiconductor Failure Analysis:

  • Enabling Description: The system is applied to the surface of a silicon wafer. The "map" is a high-resolution image of the die from a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The "tiles" are individual circuit components (transistors, capacitors) defined by the GDSII layout file. An analyst navigates the SEM view. When the SEM is focused on a specific transistor (the "tile"), the system identifies it. If the analyst then uses an electron beam to probe a specific part of that transistor, like the gate (the "view of interest"), the system overlays "AR content" consisting of real-time voltage contrast data, expected logic states from a simulation, and material composition information from an EDX detector.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    flowchart TD
        A[SEM Image Acquisition] --> B{Position Correlation};
        C[GDSII Layout Data] -- Component Boundaries --> B;
        B -- Current Component 'Tile' --> D{AR Engine};
        E[E-Beam Probe] -- Probe Coordinates --> F{View of Interest ID};
        F -- 'Gate' of Transistor X --> D;
        G[EDX Detector Data] --> H[Live Data Feed];
        I[SPICE Simulation Data] --> H;
        D & H --> J[Overlay AR Content on SEM View];
    

• 2.2. Planetary-Scale Application for Mars Rover Navigation:

  • Enabling Description: The "map" is a planetary orbital map of Mars. "Tiles" are kilometer-scale sectors of the Martian surface, defined by geological features. As a rover (e.g., Perseverance) enters a new tile, its mission plan autonomously loads a new set of scientific objectives and navigation constraints associated with that tile (e.g., "Analyze soil in Tile G-7," "Avoid steep slopes in Tile H-5"). The rover's forward-facing cameras perform visual odometry and identify specific rock formations or terrain hazards. A recognized hazardous rock (the "view of interest") causes the system to overlay a no-go zone in the rover's local navigation path, an example of "AR content" being an actionable data overlay for an autonomous agent.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    stateDiagram-v2
        [*] --> InTile_G6
        InTile_G6 --> MovingTo_G7 : Traverse
        MovingTo_G7 --> InTile_G7 : Arrived
        InTile_G7: Load Science Objectives for G-7
        InTile_G7: Activate Hazard Detection
        state InTile_G7 {
            Drive --> HazardScan : Every 10m
            HazardScan --> Drive : Path Clear
            HazardScan --> AvoidanceManeuver : Hazard in View
            AvoidanceManeuver --> Drive : Path Re-routed
        }
    

3. Cross-Domain Application

• 3.1. Aerospace: Smart Wiring Harness Assembly:

  • Enabling Description: An aerospace technician wears AR glasses while building a complex wiring harness on a large assembly board. The board is the "map," and each connector port is a "tile." When the technician's device recognizes they are working at a specific port (e.g., J-15), the system populates the view with AR content for that connection. As the technician looks at a specific pin on that connector (the "view of interest"), the system overlays the correct wire color, part number, and required crimping tool. The system can also highlight the target pin on the other end of the wire, ensuring correct end-to-end connectivity.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    flowchart TD
        Start --> A{Identify Connector Tile: J-15};
        A --> B{Fetch Connection Data for J-15};
        B --> C{Detect View of Interest: Pin 4};
        C --> D[Overlay AR Data: Wire P/N 123-Red, Tool-B];
        D --> E{Highlight Target: Connector P-08, Pin 9};
        E --> F{Verify Connection with Continuity Tester};
        F -- OK --> A;
    

• 3.2. AgTech: Precision Pest Management with Drones:

  • Enabling Description: A farm is mapped and divided into one-hectare "tiles." A swarm of autonomous drones patrols the farm. When a drone enters a specific tile, it loads a mission package for that area, including known pest hotspots. Using a multispectral camera, the drone scans rows of crops. If it identifies a plant showing signs of aphid infestation (the "view of interest"), it triggers the "AR content," which in this case is a command to a second, specialized drone. This second drone flies to the precise coordinates and performs a targeted micro-spraying of pesticide, minimizing chemical usage and environmental impact.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    sequenceDiagram
        participant Controller
        participant ScoutDrone
        participant SprayerDrone
        Controller->>ScoutDrone: Patrol Tile H4
        ScoutDrone->>ScoutDrone: Scan Crops
        ScoutDrone->>Controller: Report Pest at GPS(X,Y)
        Controller->>SprayerDrone: Dispatch to GPS(X,Y)
        SprayerDrone->>SprayerDrone: Execute Targeted Spray
        SprayerDrone->>Controller: Report Mission Complete
    

• 3.3. Consumer Electronics: Interactive Smart Home Manual:

  • Enabling Description: The system is applied to a home environment. Each smart appliance (thermostat, oven, TV) is a "tile." When a user points their smartphone at the smart thermostat, an app recognizes it and enters the "Thermostat Tile." The app displays basic controls. If the user then aims their camera at the physical wiring panel behind the thermostat's faceplate (the "view of interest"), the app overlays an interactive wiring diagram. Tapping a virtual wire overlay displays its function (e.g., "Common Wire," "Heat Call"). This provides context-sensitive repair and installation guidance without requiring the user to find a paper manual.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    graph TD
        A[Start App] --> B{Point phone at appliance};
        B -- Recognizes Oven --> C[Enter 'Oven Tile'];
        B -- Recognizes Thermostat --> D[Enter 'Thermostat Tile'];
        D --> E{View of Interest: Front Panel};
        D --> F{View of Interest: Wiring Panel};
        E --> G[Display User Controls];
        F --> H[Overlay Interactive Wiring Diagram];
    

4. Integration with Emerging Tech

• 4.1. AI-Driven Predictive Tile Caching:

  • Enabling Description: The AR management engine incorporates a recurrent neural network (RNN), specifically an LSTM model, trained on historical movement data from all users in the environment. The model takes a user's recent trajectory (a sequence of tile IDs and timestamps) as input and predicts a probability distribution for the next tile they are likely to enter. The system then preemptively pushes the AR content for the top 1-2 most likely tiles to the user's device. This predictive caching minimizes latency when the user crosses a tile boundary, creating a seamless experience.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    flowchart LR
        A[User Device] -- Trajectory: [T1, T5, T9] --> B[AR Management Engine];
        subgraph B
            C[LSTM Model] -- Predicts Next Tile --> D{Pre-cache Logic};
            C <.-> E[Historical Path Database];
        end
        D -- Probability(T10)=0.8, P(T8)=0.15 --> A;
        A -- Pre-fetches content for T10 --> F((Content CDN));
    

• 4.2. Blockchain for Verifiable AR Content and Tile Ownership:

  • Enabling Description: The "tile map" is managed as a decentralized application (dApp) on a public blockchain (e.g., Ethereum). Each tile is a non-fungible token (NFT) whose ownership can be bought, sold, or leased. The metadata for each NFT tile points to an immutable content hash (e.g., on IPFS) that defines the AR content package. When an advertiser wants to place an ad in a specific physical location, they purchase or lease the corresponding tile NFT. Users' devices query the blockchain to get the authentic content hash for their current tile, ensuring the AR content they see is genuine and authorized by the tile owner, preventing content spoofing or unauthorized alterations.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    erDiagram
        TILE_NFT {
            string TokenID PK
            string OwnerAddress
            string ContentHash
        }
        USER_DEVICE {
            string DeviceID PK
            string CurrentTileID
        }
        IPFS {
            string ContentHash PK
            blob ARContentPackage
        }
        TILE_NFT ||--o{ USER_DEVICE : "is located in"
        TILE_NFT ||--|| IPFS : "points to"
    

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

• 5.1. Graceful Degradation Mode with Progressive Detail:

  • Enabling Description: The system is designed to operate under variable network bandwidth and device processing power. Each tile is associated with multiple AR content packages at different levels of detail (LOD). In optimal conditions, the device downloads a high-fidelity package with complex 3D models and high-resolution textures. If the network is slow or the device CPU is overloaded, the AR engine automatically requests a lower-LOD package, which might consist of simple 2D icons and text. In a complete network failure, the device falls back to a pre-cached "base" layer for the tile, showing only critical information like a location name. This ensures the system always provides some value rather than failing completely.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    stateDiagram-v2
        state "High Bandwidth" as High {
            Entry: Load LOD-1 (Full 3D)
        }
        state "Low Bandwidth" as Low {
            Entry: Load LOD-2 (2D Icons/Text)
        }
        state "Offline" as Offline {
            Entry: Load LOD-3 (Cached Text)
        }
    
        [*] --> High : Good Connection
        High --> Low : Bandwidth Drops
        Low --> High : Bandwidth Improves
        Low --> Offline : Connection Lost
        High --> Offline : Connection Lost
        Offline --> Low : Connection Restored
    

• 5.2. Safety-Critical Override for Emergency Egress:

  • Enabling Description: The AR system is integrated with a building's fire alarm and emergency management system. Upon an alarm trigger, the AR management engine enters a "safety override" mode. It immediately terminates all standard AR content rendering on devices within the building. It then force-pushes a single, mandatory AR content package to every device. This package overlays large, simple, animated arrows onto the user's view of the world, directing them along the safest and most current egress path, dynamically updated based on real-time data about fire or hazard locations. All other functionality is disabled to prevent distraction.
  • Mermaid Diagram:

    flowchart TD
        A{Fire Alarm Triggered};
        A --> B[AR Engine: ENTER OVERRIDE MODE];
        B --> C{Terminate All Standard AR Sessions};
        C --> D{Broadcast Egress Path AR Package};
        subgraph User Device
            E[Receive Override Package];
            F[Render Egress Arrows];
        end
        D --> E;
        G[Real-time Hazard Map] -- Updates --> D;