DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the RCE filed on 03/10/2026 and the amendment filed on 02/10/2026. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending in the case. Claim 19 has been canceled. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent claims. Claims 18 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plagemann et al. (US 2015/0220149 A1; hereinafter Plagemann) in view of Klein et al. (US 2013/0125066 A1; hereinafter Klein) further in view of Givon et al., (US 2012/0218183 A1, hereinafter Givon).
As to claim 1, Plagemann teaches:
A system (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0018-0020) comprising: a sensor monitoring a three-dimensional (3D) space and tracking an object (see Fig. 1, 5 and ¶ 0018, 0028, 0029; capture device is used to track hand/finger, the capture device can be a camera, sensing device using Infrared or ultrasound sensors. ¶ 0030; the capture device 122 can be used to capture or collect 3D information; the 3D information can be used to identify movement of portions of a hand (e.g., thumb and/or fingers) of the user); and one or more processors, coupled to memory, the memory being loaded with computer instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0020-0028) comprising:
associating a digital object, as presented on a device having a screen area, with a tracked object (¶ 0034; the 3D information provided by the capture device 122 can be used to identify a location within the working space of certain portions of a user's hand (e.g., a finger tip, a tip of the thumb, the thenar webbing, etc.) and allow the user to maneuver and position a cursor within the display portion of the computing device 120 based on the located portions of the user's hand. Figs. 2-6 and ¶ 0055-0056; the user can manipulate and position a cursor 248 within the display portion 242 by moving portions of the user’s hand within the working volume 238);
determining a path of movement of the digital object based, at least in part, on a movement of the tracked object, wherein the path of movement is a modification of at least one of a position or an orientation of the digital object (¶ 0034; the user can position and move portions of his or her hand within the working volume to maneuver the cursor. ¶ 0055-0056; The user can use the thumb and finger tip to move the cursor 248 within the display portion 242 in the same or similar manner as a mouse, touchpad or trackpad, while maintaining the hands of the user within the working volume 238, and without making contact with the display portion 242);
wherein the digital object is an interactive element (see Figs. 2-5 and ¶ 0034, 0055-0056; the digital object is a cursor which is interpreted as an interactive element).
Plagemann does not appear to teach:
selecting a presentation property of the digital object based, at least in part, on a property,
wherein the property is based, at least in part, on (i) a portion of the screen area surrounding the digital object and (ii) a property associated with the path of movement, comprising at least one of a velocity, an acceleration, another portion of the screen area along the path of movement, or a latency between a movement of the tracked object and a movement of the digital object.
Klein is relied upon for teaching the deficient limitations. Specifically, Klein teaches: a system having an input device such as a depth camera using finger (see ¶ 0017) comprising
selecting a presentation property of the digital object based, at least in part, on a property (see Fig. 2B and ¶ 0029; the adaptive area cursor 206 modifies or grows its area when the cursor is near two elements),
wherein the property is based, at least in part, on (i) a portion of the screen area surrounding the digital object (see Fig. 2B and ¶ 0029; Fig. 2B shows an example, in which the adaptive area cursor 206 is near two elements, but not intersecting either. In this example, the adaptive area cursor 206 modifies (grows) its area (represented by the larger, dashed-line circle 222 and the dashed arrow indicating direction of the modification) until an element is intersected, which in this example is the element E11. Fig. 3 and ¶ 0033-0034; the cursor grows in size if few interactive elements are nearby) and (ii) a property associated with the path of movement, comprising at least one of a velocity, an acceleration, another portion of the screen area along the path of movement, or a latency between a movement of the tracked object and a movement of the digital object (see ¶ 0020; The size of the area cursor may be fixed or may vary, and for example may be determined in various ways, including by speed of cursor movement, density of displayed elements, based upon user characteristics (e.g., the size of a user's finger or palm), the distance from a user to the displayed program elements (which may be known via depth camera data), user-specified preference information, and so forth. ¶ 0029, 0033; Modification of the cursor size may be in a negative direction, e.g., to shrink the area depending on cursor movement speed and/or other factors).
In addition, Givon is relied upon for teaching the limitations: selecting a presentation property of the digital object based, at least in part, on (ii) a property associated with the path of movement, comprising at least one of a velocity, an acceleration, another portion of the screen area along the path of movement, or a latency between a movement of the tracked object and a movement of the digital object (Givon: ¶ 0053; cursor moving according to user’s hand moving and the cursor becomes larger when initial velocity of moving cursor decreases below a threshold speed as shown in Fig. 7).
The references, each discloses a system for detecting an object and associated the detected object with a digital object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teaching of Plagemann and the teaching of Klein/Givon together to provide a user interface configured to select a presentation property of the digital object as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Klein/Givon that allows the user to easily select a desired element on a display using air gesture (Klein: see ¶ 0001-0002) and for the benefit of being able to “make the input element more prominent (e.g. larger or in a better location) and more easily engageable”, (Givon ¶ 0020).
As for claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon further teach: the system comprising the device, wherein the device includes a display (Plagemann: ¶ 0004, 0021, 0023, 0047, 0068; the device includes display 242 as shown in figs. 2-8).
As for claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon further teach: wherein selecting of the presentation property includes determining a color of display for the digital object, the color of the display being a first color responsive to a speed of the tracked object satisfying a threshold speed, or a second color responsive to the speed of the tracked object not satisfying the threshold speed (Klein: see ¶ 0033; another criterion may be the current or recent speed of cursor motion, e.g., a cursor quickly moved to a position is more likely to be imprecisely positioned by the user than if slowly moved to that position, and thus size modification (or more significant size modification than usual) may be used; for example, the radius of the circle may be increased or decreased (down to some minimum) based on the current speed of the cursor's motion. The cursor may fade out or visibly change in some other way to encourage the user to slow down. ¶ 0021; discloses change its color). Thus, combining Plagemann/Klein would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As for claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon further teach: wherein the operations comprise associating a path of movement of the tracked object with a first class of movement that is different from a second class of movement (Givon ¶ 0053; discloses path of movement of tracked object, user’s hand, is first class of movement, movement below predetermined threshold speed, that is different from second class of movement, movement above predetermined threshold speed);
wherein the selecting of the presentation property of the digital object comprises determining an appearance of the digital object based, at least in part, on a detection that the path of the movement is associated with the first class of movement (Givon: ¶ 0053; discloses selection of presentation property of determining an appearance of the digital object, the cursor, is based on path of movement being first class of movement, movement at below predetermined threshold speed).
Klein discloses determining a color of the digital object (Klein: see ¶ 0033; another criterion may be the current or recent speed of cursor motion, e.g., a cursor quickly moved to a position is more likely to be imprecisely positioned by the user than if slowly moved to that position, and thus size modification (or more significant size modification than usual) may be used; for example, the radius of the circle may be increased or decreased (down to some minimum) based on the current speed of the cursor's motion. The cursor may fade out or visibly change in some other way to encourage the user to slow down. ¶ 0021; discloses change its color). Thus, combining Plagemann/Klein would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As for claim 10, claim 10 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon further teach: system and method comprising displaying on a display linked to the device (Plagemann ¶ 0004, 0021, 0023, 0027, 0029, 0047, 0068: discloses the device includes display 242 that is linked to the device, television screen, projected screen on surface).
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 6, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 16, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 16 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 8, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 3-4, 7, 12, and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plagemann/Klein/Givon in view Schroder et al., (US 2010/0281434 A1, hereinafter Schroder).
As for claim 3, the rejection of claim is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon do not teach, but Schroder is relied upon for teaching the limitations: wherein selecting of the presentation property includes determining a brightness of the digital object (Schroder ¶ 0034, 0043; determining a brightness of the at least one separate interactive object, changing the brightness of the cursor 700 based on background).
The references, each discloses a system for rendering a cursor representation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teaching of Plagemann/Klein/Givon and the teaching of Schroder together to provide a user interface configured to change the brightness of the cursor as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Schroder that providing the ability to modify a cursor such that it is easily distinguishable from the background (Schroder: see ¶ 0034, 0043).
As for claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon/Schroder discloses method and system wherein selecting of the presentation property includes modifying determining a contrast of the digital object (Schroder ¶ 0034, 0043; modifying a contrast of the at least one separate interactive object, adjusting the contrast of the cursor 700 based on background). Thus, combining Plagemann/Klein/Schroder would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
As for claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon/Schroder further teach: wherein the selecting of the presentation property includes determining a rate of display of causes the digital object to flash or pulse (Schroder ¶ 0007, 0043; causing the cursor to blink). Thus, combining Plagemann/Klein/Givon/Schroder would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 4, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 15 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 7, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plagemann/Klein/Givon in view Forlenza et al., (US 2002/0063740 A1, hereinafter Forlenza).
As for claim 5, the rejection of claim is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon further teach the selecting of the presentation property includes determining a transparency of the digital object (Klein: see ¶ 0033; the cursor may fade out or visibly change in some other way to encourage the user to slow down). In addition, Forlenza is relied upon for teaching the limitations: wherein the selecting of the presentation property includes determining a transparency of the digital object (Forlenza ¶ 0054; modifying a transparency of the digital object, making the cursor transparent or invisible).
The references, each discloses a system for rendering a cursor representation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teaching of Plagemann/Klein/Givon and the teaching of Forlenza together to provide a user interface configured to change the transparency of the cursor as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of being able to modify a cursor such that it is easily distinguishable from the background.
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plagemann/Klein/Givon in view Lee et al., (US 2012/0062558 A1, hereinafter Lee).
As for claim 9, the rejection of claim is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon do not teach, but Lee is relied upon for teaching the limitations: detecting an element to which the digital object is moving towards, and determining a color of the digital object to indicate an interaction with the element (Lee: ¶ 0110; disclosed interactive object is moving towards, pointer 503 is moved closer to a specific icon, and changing a color of the digital object to indicate interaction with the presented element, color or shape of pointer 503 may be changed).
The references, each discloses a system for rendering a cursor representation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teaching of Plagemann/Klein/Givon and the teaching of Lee together to provide a user interface configured to change the appearance of the cursor as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of having “a user interface environment that enables the user to easily and conveniently search for and select a function", (Lee ¶ 0007).
As for claim 17, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 9, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 21 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plagemann/Klein/Givon in view King et al., (US 2013/0135288 A1, hereinafter King).
As for claim 21, the rejection of claim is incorporated. Plagemann/Klein/Givon further teach: the property of portion of the screen area surrounding the digital object is determined based, at least in part, on at least one of (i) a past path of movement and (ii) a predicted future path of movement of the digital object (Klein: see ¶ 0033; another criterion may be the current or recent speed of cursor motion, e.g., a cursor quickly moved to a position is more likely to be imprecisely positioned by the user than if slowly moved to that position, and thus size modification (or more significant size modification than usual) may be used). In addition, King is relied upon for teaching the limitations: the property of portion of the screen area surrounding the digital object is determined based, at least in part, on at least one of (i) a past path of movement and (ii) a predicted future path of movement of the digital object (King: ¶ 0030-0031; discloses the property of the screen area surrounding the at least one separate interactive object is determined based on a past path, the property of screen area is determined to have changed from light background 304 to dark background 306 when based on the path of the moved cursor as shown in fig. 3).
The references, each discloses a system for rendering a cursor representation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teaching of Plagemann/Klein/Givon and the teaching of King together to provide a user interface configured to change the appearance of the cursor as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of having “improved the visibility of the cursor making the cursor easier to find”, (King ¶ 0030).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 15-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes the new reference Klein is used in place of Krepec.
Regarding claim 7, Schroder is relied upon for teaching the limitation of “flash or pulse” as rejected supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights