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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The following are the applicant’s Arguments and The Office’s responses.
Applicant Argues: The Applicant alleges that Claims 21, 24, 26, 27, 29-31, and 33-38 are rejected as allegedly obvious over Erivantcev, Pelis, and Speck, the same references used in previous actions. Claims 22, 23, 25, 28, 32, and 39 are rejected over these same three references, further in view of Vescovi. All of these rejections should be withdrawn.
Response: The Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as the Office finds that Erivantcev US Patent Application (20170308165), hereinafter “Erivantcev”, Pelis et al., US Patent Application (20190250733), hereinafter “Pelis” and Speck US Patent Application (20170083115), hereinafter “Speck”, the prior art cited, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. The Office finds the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Applicant Alleges that “The Office Action's analysis of claim 21 begins with Erivantcev, which discloses a data input device that comprises several rings, designed to be worn on fingers of a user's hand” … “At least one of the rings includes a touch pad ''mounted on the ring (104b) and adapted to receive touch inputs activated by the thumb of the same hand of the user.” … “controlling computing devices via gesture recognition. Here, the Office Action points to Erivantcev’s paragraphs 0037 and 0039, which indeed describes motion capturing and the use of devices containing multiple sensors for control and data input. (Office Action p. 9.)”
However, the Office Action admits, at page 9, that Erivantcev does not teach the specific control features recited in claim 21, i.e., that ''controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling which is continued based on the motion sensor data." (Office Action 9.)
Response: The Office Action discloses what is taught by each piece of prior art and on Page 9 of the Office Action the Office clearly states – “Erivantcev does not explicitly teach (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;”. However, Erivantcev does teach – “controlling the UI based on touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring-shaped device and further based on motion sensor data from a motion sensor of the wearable electronic device”
The Office is only responsible to discloses prior art which teaches the actual claim limitations. Further the Office Action clearly indicates and cites the relevant embodiment of Erivantcev and as the applicant admits Erivantcev teaches a ring with a touch pad on the ring as cited in the Office Action. Erivantcev teaches in the Office Action a wearable electronic device, for controlling a user interface (UI), The hand-worn devices can be used for interaction with VR/AR applications implemented on mobile platforms for data input and/or control interface [Erivantcev para 0037]; “a touch pad wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to communicate with an electronic ring-shaped device comprising one or more touch sensors, one ring (104b) includes a touch pad (106) mounted on the ring (104b) [Erivantcev para 0043] the method comprising: controlling the UI based on touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring- shaped device adapted to receive touch inputs activated by the thumb of the same hand of the user including one or more click buttons incorporated into the touch pad mount. [Erivantcev para 0043].
The Office cites “the touch pad” of Erivantcev which can receive “control inputs” as disclosed at paragraphs 0037 and 0039 and as cited in the Office Action “[touch pad activation (without limitation to other types of input gestures).] The hand-worn devices can also be used to implement intuitive gestures that are standard on touch screen on smartphones and mouse-based graphical user interfaces, such as sliding, swiping, zooming, selecting, pointing, and clicking. Most scrolling operations are known to be initiated by a swipe or sliding motion but the Office admits Erivantcev did not specifically mention scrolling so Pelis was combined to teach initiating a page scroll.
Pelis does the Office finds teaches gesture recognition and specifically describes a gesture a touch pad which causes the interface to scroll through itwms on the interface or that Pelis discloses (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling. The Office finds the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Applicant next alleges that “The Office Action thus turns to Pelis. According to the Office Action, ''Pelis teaches a known technique of using a single finger swipe gesture by using a finger and running it across the touch sensor to affect a page scroll which teaches (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling." (Office Action p. 9.) The Office Action specifically cites Pelis's paragraph 0037, which says that a ''touch sensor 220 may be used to take gesture style input from the user'' and that ''the user may be able to take a single finger and run it across the touch sensor 220 to affect a page scroll." (Office Action pp. 9, 10.) Notably, the ''touch sensor 220'' referred to here is on a ''pen 200," which is a complicated user input device with multiple inputs and sensors. (Pelis Fig. 2, <]I<]{ 0033, 0034.)
Response: The Office Action combines Pelis to teach scrolling which Pelis describes as “the user may be able to take a single finger and run it across the touch sensor” as disclosed in the Office Action and since Erivantcev teaches using a touch pad to receive swipes and sliding as touch inputs the prior art is naturally combined as Erivantcev anticipates sliding and swiping commands to control a user interface and Pelis uses a sliding or swiping motion to scroll a page that was not scrolling which improves Erivantcev’s device, systems and methods of control an interface. Further both inventions described well known art which one of ordinary skill could combine. Further under the broadest reasonable interpretation a touch pad is a touch sensor as it detects a user’s touch upon it and then recognizes standard touch screen inputs. The Office finds the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Applicant allegations continues “The Office Action also points to Pelis's paragraph 0097, which, the Office Action contends, discloses that a ''user may use the touch pad to interact with the email program to assist in reading, scrolling, moving to another email, etc." (Office Action pp. 9, 10.) The Office Action does not mention, however, that the ''touch pad'' referred to here is a ''displayed touch pad," and is not the touch sensor 220 on Pelis's pen 200. Thus, while Pelis discloses that touch sensor data can be used to ''affect a page scroll," it does not actually suggest that the more complex operations carried out with Pelis's projected or displayed touch pad can be performed with the touch sensor 220. In particular, there is nothing in Pelis to suggest that the small touch sensor 220 on Pelis's pen 200 (or the similarly small touch sensor on Erivantcev's ring 104b) is useful for or would be effective at scrolling through items on a display, as opposed to simply ''affecting a page scroll," as Pelis actually teaches. This is at least one reason why the combination of references cited by the Office Action fails to disclose or suggest the method of claim 21.”
Response: The Office does not find the applicant’s argument persuasive and finds that Pelis discloses (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling as disclosed above and in the Office Action and is analogous art which can improve Erivantcev’s invention. The Office finds the Office Action describes Pelis is simply being used to teach “initiating scrolling and then scrolling through items of the display” on a touch sensor, such as scrolling a menu or email list on a display. First the Office would like to make clear that Pelis teaches at paragraph 0097 (i.e. the paragraph cited in the office action) “an embodiment that “the user interface may be activated (e.g. projected or displayed) based on an affirmative user action, contextual information or other information. For example, if the user launches a software application on the head-worn computer that interoperates with a particular type of user interface (e.g. a keyboard, button, mouse, touch pad). … The user may also use a user interface mounted on the head-worn computer to launch the projected or displayed interface. The interface or i.e. the touch pad maybe mounted thus it would present a real surface of a touch pad not a projected image for the user to touch as the disclosed in the office action and described by the applicant above. The applicant points to another embodiment of Pelis not disclosed by the Office and thus these allegations are not persuasive. Similarly Erivantcev describes a touch pad sensor on a hand worn device which can interpret gestures to control an interface.
Pelis clearly teaches that a touch pad is interoperable with a display to initiate and control a scrolling operation. That is all Pelis is being relied upon to teach. The applicant describing other embodiments of Pelis and discussing “pens with touch sensors being complex” is unsupported and unpersuasive since Pelis clearly discloses initiating page scroll and scrolling through an email list after a user makes a gesture. Pelis does teach that a “user interface” activated touch pad
Since Erivantcev already teaches a touch sensor (i.e. a touch pad which receives inputs gestures) that is used to control a User Interface to perform operations while responding to standard input gestures. Pelis is very clear its touch pad sensor can assist in scrolling an email list. The applicant does not explain how a touch pad on a ring is somehow different than a touch pad on head worn device or even a pen when both specifications of the prior discuss how the touch pads or touch sensors are use inputs to control a user interface. In fact, the applicant does not cite anything in making this allegation that Pelis’s touch pad is some different than Erivantcev in regards to receiving gesture inputs and providing a response to said gestures, other than speculation.
What the applicant does not state is that Pelis does not teach initiating a scrolling action or that Pelis does not teach scrolling thru items of a display. T
The Office does not find the applicant’s argument persuasive and finds that Pelis discloses (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling as disclosed above and in the Office Action and is analogous art which can improve Erivantcev’s invention.
Applicant Argues: The Applicant’s allegations continue “This is not the most significant reason, however. The Office Action's analysis of claim 21 admits that the combination of Erivantcev and Pelis fails to teach that while touch sensor data (from a touch sensor on a ring-shaped device) initiates a scrolling through items of a display, the scrolling is ''continued based on the motion sensor data'' from a motion sensor on a wearable electronic device. (Office Action p. 11.) To be clear, the Office Action contends that Pelis discloses a ''page scroll," controlled by the touch of a finger on a touch sensor, which the Office Action says constitutes ''initiating'' a scrolling, but admits that the combination of Erivantcev and Pelis does not disclose that a scrolling is initiated by touch sensor data and then continued based on motion sensor data”.
Response: The Office did not admit what the applicant alleges and it appears the applicant is misstating the Office Action as to what is taught by each piece of prior art. and on Page 11 of the Office Action the Office clearly states – “Erivantcev and Pelis do teach (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling However Erivantcev in view of Pelis does not teach (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data”. The Office asks that Applicant either edit or withdraw such statements which are in direct conflict to what is stated in the Office Action.
Further, Erivantcev discloses and as the applicant admits above Erivantec teaches a ring with a touch pad on the ring as cited in the Office Action a touch pad wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to communicate with an electronic ring-shaped device comprising one or more touch sensors, one ring (104b) includes a touch pad (106) mounted on the ring (104b) [Erivantcev para 0043] the method comprising: controlling the UI based on touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring- shaped device adapted to receive touch inputs activated by the thumb of the same hand of the user including one or more click buttons incorporated into the touch pad mount. [Erivantcev para 0043].
There is no requirement that one device teaches all the claim limitations rather the question is the applicant’s invention is disclosed in prior art prior to the Applicant’s invention or not. Further the Office finds that there was motivation to combine such prior art and as shown above. Erivantcev and Pelis teach the required claim limitations and there is proper motivation to combine the prior art. While is it expected the applicant would argue against disclosures taught by the prior art in the Office Action, it is improper for the applicant’s attorney to simply replace his opinion with what is actually stated by the Office, in the Office Action. The Office finds the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Applicant allegations continues “the Office Action turns to Speck, citing Speck's paragraph 0116, noting that this paragraph teaches ''incorporating movements of a hand into an input." (Office Action p. 12.) The Office Action specifically notes that Speck teaches that its motion-sensing devices can be used to effect ''a gradation of commands," such that ''when swiping with the entire hand, that is recorded with a motion sensor, a faster scrolling or browsing is triggered."
This, the Office Action argues, means that Speck teaches that scrolling is continued based on motion sensor data, as the claim requires. But what this overlooks is that the claim specifies a unique combination of sensor input that controls a scrolling through items of a display, where the scrolling is initiated by a touch sensor and then continued based on motion sensor data. There is no dispute that Speck discloses that motion sensors can be used to perform scrolling operations, and there is no dispute that Pelis teaches that a touch sensor can be used to perform scrolling operations. What is missing is any suggestion from the prior art, without the benefit of hindsight provided by the Applicant's disclosure, of this particular combination of functionality.
Response: The Office finds the applicant has overlooked that Erivantcev disclosed in the Office Action to the claim 21 limitation - “further based on motion sensor data from a motion sensor of the wearable electronic device. Erivantcev disclosed include multiple-sensor, hand-worn devices for motion capturing and positioning of hand and fingers in virtual reality (“VR”) or augmented/mixed reality (“AR”) applications (collectively, “VR/AR” applications) and controlling computing devices via gesture recognition. [Erivantcev para 0037] The hand-worn devices can also be used to implement intuitive gestures that are standard on touch screen on smartphones and mouse-based graphical user interfaces, such as sliding, swiping, zooming, selecting, pointing, and clicking [Erivantcev para 0039];
Erivantcev already taught using hand worn devices for motion capturing” (i.e. motion sensors) to control computing devices through gesture recognition as discloses in the Office Action. Adding Speck simply adds its gesture recognition teachings of moving a hand to increase the scrolling action. The motion sensors of Erivantec ability to provide control is improved with Speck’s teachings of using a motion sensor to detect movement to specifically teach increasing the speed of a scrolling action. There is no hindsight shown by the applicant when the disclosures of the Office Action are reviewed. The applicant admits that “there is no dispute that Speck discloses that motion sensors can be used to perform scrolling operations, and there is no dispute that Pelis teaches that a touch sensor can be used to perform scrolling operations” and has not shown any hindsight. The applicant does not explain how the prior art does not teach the claim limitations as presented or how the modifications do not provide improvements or commercial viability of the device. In fact, the Applicant for the most part admits that all the technical features of the claim 21 are present in the prior art but one could not combine said elements to the applicant’s invention. The Office finds the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments: The Applicant allegations continues in its arguments “Erivantcev's system includes a touch pad and motion sensors, but Erivantcev does not describe scrolling operations, and provides no suggestion for why or how scrolling operations could be performed in the specific manner recited in the claims.
Given these teachings, the Office Action provides no reasoning, with a rational underpinning, to explain why it would have been obvious to develop a method that includes the specific combination of operations recited in claim 21. While it says that one of ordinary skill in the art ''would have been capable'' of applying Pelis's techniques and Speck's techniques to Erivantcev' s system, it does not provide an adequate explanation for why the person of ordinary skill in the art would have done so. The Applicant continues that “It is certainly true that one of ordinary skill in the art can combine technology from different references. But to support a rejection for obviousness, there must be a reason for the person of ordinary skill in the art to do so in the particular manner claimed. As discussed above, this is what is missing from the present rejections. Importantly, that reason must flow from the prior art or the common knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art”.
Response: As discussed above Erivantcev teaches using a touch pad to receive gestures and that it does control an interface. As discussed above Erivantcev discloses controlling inputs such as swiping and sliding along a touch screen as control gestures. Erivantcev also discusses using motion sensors to control its interface. Pelis and Speck provide gesture recognition to interpret said gestures which provide specific controls of an interface. It is an improvement of a device to have display interface which scrolls data than one that does not scroll through data and it is also an improvement to be able to control the speed of the scrolling from the same hand worn ring device. Improvements of the ability to scroll and moving the scrolling faster are found inmany commercial devices are not only improve the device but improves the commercial viability of a device to compete in the market place. Since the improvements from Pelis and Speck are well known technology and improve a device, it only takes one of ordinary skill in the art to make such improvements. The Office finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments: The Applicant alleges and discusses that in the last Office Action the Office cited the Applicant’s specific to discuss how it interpreted the claim language in response to an argument of the Applicant. The Applicant states it is improper to use the applicant’s specification to interpret what the claim means. The Applicant states” The Office Action here attempts to use the Applicant's teachings to support the rejection, which is completely inappropriate. The Applicant's teachings, at paragraph 0236 of the specification or elsewhere, are not prior art. That the Office is forced to resort to the Applicant's own teachings to support the conclusion of obviousness.
Response: The Office notes the Applicant provides no specifics as to how citing the applicant’s specification is improper and further the Applicant again parses the Office Action in an attempt to not provide the proper context for its allegations. The Office finds the arguments provided in the last Office Action to be proper and the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive. The Office used the applicant’s specification to discuss how it interpreted the claims and as the MPEP allows the Office to interpret the claims it is not improper. The applicant does not explain how the prior art does not teach the claim limitations as presented or how the modifications do not provide improvements or commercial viability of the device. The Office finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive as it did not use the applicant’s specification to prove obviousness.
Applicant’s Arguments: Lastly the Applicant summarizes its Arguments. “It is certainly true that one of ordinary skill in the art can combine technology from different references. But to support a rejection for obviousness, there must be a reason for the person of ordinary skill in the art to do so in the particular manner claimed. As discussed above, this is what is missing from the present rejections. Importantly, that reason must flow from the prior art or the common knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response: As discussed above one of ordinary skill would recognize that technology existing prior to the applicant’s invention could combine the teachings of the Prior Art to modify Erivantcev device to scroll upon a specific gesture on its touch pad sensor and to increase the speed of said scrolling thus further improving the user’s experience in using the device. Pelis and Speck both teach controlling an interface one through a touch pad sensor and the other through using a motion sensor. Erivantcev can provide control to an interface through its touch sensor and motion sensors and is made more commercially appealing by improving the functionality of a device as many devices provide scrolling gesture interpretation and increasing the speed of scrolling in the market place today. As discussed above the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as the Office finds that Erivantcev US Patent Application (20170308165), hereinafter “Erivantcev”, Pelis et al., US Patent Application (20190250733), hereinafter “Pelis” and Speck US Patent Application (20170083115), hereinafter “Speck”, the prior art cited, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21
For the reasons discussed above the Office has maintained its art rejections while clarifying its discussions and motivations to combine said art in an attempt to move the prosecution of the application forward.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21, 24, 26-27, 29-31, and 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erivantcev US Patent Application (20170308165), hereinafter “Erivantcev”, Pelis et al., US Patent Application (20190250733), hereinafter “Pelis” and Speck US Patent Application (20170083115), hereinafter “Speck”.
Regarding claim 21 Erivantcev teaches
a method, performed by a wearable electronic device, for controlling a user interface (UI), The hand-worn devices can be used for interaction with VR/AR applications implemented on mobile platforms for data input and/or control interface [Erivantcev para 0037]
wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to communicate with an electronic ring-shaped device comprising one or more touch sensors, one ring (104b) includes a touch pad (106) mounted on the ring (104b) [Erivantcev para 0043] the method comprising:
controlling the UI based on touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring- shaped device adapted to receive touch inputs activated by the thumb of the same hand of the user including one or more click buttons incorporated into the touch pad mount. [Erivantcev para 0043]
and further based on motion sensor data from a motion sensor of the wearable electronic device. include multiple-sensor, hand-worn devices for motion capturing and positioning of hand and fingers in virtual reality (“VR”) or augmented/mixed reality (“AR”) applications (collectively, “VR/AR” applications) and controlling computing devices via gesture recognition. [Erivantcev para 0037] The hand-worn devices can also be used to implement intuitive gestures that are standard on touch screen on smartphones and mouse-based graphical user interfaces, such as sliding, swiping, zooming, selecting, pointing, and clicking [Erivantcev para 0039];
However, Erivantcev does not explicitly teach (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;
Pelis teaches a known technique of using a single finger swipe gesture by using a finger and running it across the touch sensor to affect a page scroll which teaches (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling. More specifically Pelis teaches if the user launches an email application, the user may automatically be presented with a ‘reader's’ user interface such as a projected or displayed touch pad. The user may use the touch pad to interact with the email program to assist in reading, scrolling, moving to another email, etc. [Pelis para 0097] The touch sensor 220 may be used to take gesture style input from the user. For example, the user may be able to take a single finger and run it across the touch sensor 220 to affect a page scroll. [Pelis para 0037]
Erivantcev discloses a data input device and method of operating the same. In one embodiment, a data input device comprises a plurality of inertial sensor units, one or more touch input devices, a microcontroller configured to collect sensor data from the inertial sensors and the one or more touch input devices and process the sensor data to generate processed sensor data, and a wireless transceiver configured to transmit the processed sensor data to a host computer. In another embodiment, a method comprises receiving sensor data from a handheld device; calculating hand movement characteristics in three dimensional space based on the sensor data; calculating the position and orientation of the components of the handheld device; identifying positions and movements of one or more fingers of a user manipulating the handheld device; identifying a gesture from the positions and movements of one or more fingers of a user manipulating the handheld device; identifying a recognized gesture corresponding to the identified gesture; and dispatching an event notifying the gesture to an application.
Pelvis discloses user interface control of a head-worn computer which also receives and interprets control inputs such as gestures and movements. The head worn computer relates with external user interfaces used in connection with to head worn computing. Pelvis discloses a well-known technique of displaying a menu and then using a finger swipe gesture across the touch sensor to initiate scrolling thru a menu is a user controlling an interface through gesture recognition of a movement improves the user’s control of items displayed on an interface.
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev and Pelis the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Pelis’ teachings improve the user control and response of a touch and display interface by recognizing the user is interacting with said interface and responding to a user swipe gesture upon the interface to cause the scrolling through data presented on the interface.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Erivantcev and Pelis do teach (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling However Erivantcev in view of Pelis does not teach (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;
Speck teaches a user wearing an input device which is designed as a ring and can record data of the relative position of at least one finger of a hand with respect to the input device (i.e. including movement of the finger) and Speck discloses incorporating movements of a hand into an input. Speck through its ability to incorporated hand movements into input controls teaches which is continued based on the motion sensor data. As discussed above Erivantcev in view of Pelis teaches a ring input device and a touch sensor which for example, when there is a manipulation movement of one or more finger on a sensor data presented on a display is scrolled and this is well known in the art of controlling a display input and interface. Speck teaches that a gradation of commands, whether … or via the motion sensors, … while when swiping with the entire hand, that is recorded with a motion sensor, a faster scrolling or browsing is triggered. [Speck para 0116]
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev, Pelis and Speck in the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Speck improves users control of a touch and display interface by allowing the input device to learn hand movements which are recognized through motion sensors tracking hand movements and then converted into simple gestures to control the data input and response of a touch and display interface.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition Erivantcev teaches wherein the touch sensor data comprises gesture data. System software on the host computer (114) recognizes gestures from the input data and performs actions that are triggered by the gestures in application software. [Erivantcev para 0063] the method detects a recognized gesture or touch pad movement. As described above, in step 315, the method detects all or substantially all gestures of the user. [Erivantcev para 0085]
Regarding claim 27 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition Erivantcev teaches wherein the motion sensor of the wearable electronic device is any of an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) a data input device (100) includes inertial sensors (e.g., 102a-c) mounted inside … an inertial sensor comprises a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) inertial measurement unit (IMU) [Erivantcev para 0042] and a magnetic sensor. An IMU (e.g., 102a-n) i…. a magnetometer configured to measure the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field at its location in space. [Erivantcev para 0042]
Regarding claim 29 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition Erivantcev teaches wherein the UI is a UI of a further electronic device other than the wearable electronic device and the electronic ring-shaped device. Application software implements the application-specific function and usually has a graphical interface. For example, application software may implement a virtual reality (or augmented/mixed reality) game. [Erivantcev para 0042]
Regarding claim 30 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition Erivantcev teaches wherein the further electronic device is any of an Internet-of-things device, a television, a computer, a mobile phone, an audio player, a headset, a light system, a thermostat and a drone. the input device of FIG. 4 includes a communication device … the processed data from the microcontroller to a host computing device (e.g., a smartphone, a personal computer, a laptop computer, a game console, a virtual reality headset). [Erivantcev para 0042]
Regarding claim 31 Erivantcev teaches
A wearable electronic device configured to control a graphical user interface (UI), The hand-worn devices can be used for interaction with VR/AR applications implemented on mobile platforms for data input and/or control interface [Erivantcev para 0037];
wherein the wearable electronic device comprises a motion sensor include multiple-sensor, hand-worn devices for motion capturing and positioning of hand and fingers in virtual reality (“VR”) or augmented/mixed reality (“AR”) applications (collectively, “VR/AR” applications) and controlling computing devices via gesture recognition. [Erivantcev para 0037]
and is further configured to: communicate with an electronic ring-shaped device comprising one or more touch sensors one ring (104b) includes a touch pad (106) mounted on the ring (104b) [Erivantcev para 0043];
control the UI based on touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring- shaped device adapted to receive touch inputs activated by the thumb of the same hand of the user including one or more click buttons incorporated into the touch pad mount. [Erivantcev para 0043]
and further based on motion sensor data from a motion sensor include multiple-sensor, hand-worn devices for motion capturing and positioning of hand and fingers in virtual reality (“VR”) or augmented/mixed reality (“AR”) applications (collectively, “VR/AR” applications) and controlling computing devices via gesture recognition. [Erivantcev para 0037] The hand-worn devices can also be used to implement intuitive gestures that are standard on touch screen on smartphones and mouse-based graphical user interfaces, such as sliding, swiping, zooming, selecting, pointing, and clicking [Erivantcev para 0039];
However, Erivantcev does not explicitly teach (1) wherein said controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;
Pelis teaches a known technique of using a single finger swipe gesture by using a finger and running it across the touch sensor to affect a page scroll which teaches (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling. More specifically Pelis teaches if the user launches an email application, the user may automatically be presented with a ‘reader's’ user interface such as a projected or displayed touch pad. The user may use the touch pad to interact with the email program to assist in reading, scrolling, moving to another email, etc. [Pelis para 0097] The touch sensor 220 may be used to take gesture style input from the user. For example, the user may be able to take a single finger and run it across the touch sensor 220 to affect a page scroll. [Pelis para 0037]
Erivantcev discloses a data input device and method of operating the same. In one embodiment, a data input device comprises a plurality of inertial sensor units, one or more touch input devices, a microcontroller configured to collect sensor data from the inertial sensors and the one or more touch input devices and process the sensor data to generate processed sensor data, and a wireless transceiver configured to transmit the processed sensor data to a host computer. In another embodiment, a method comprises receiving sensor data from a handheld device; calculating hand movement characteristics in three dimensional space based on the sensor data; calculating the position and orientation of the components of the handheld device; identifying positions and movements of one or more fingers of a user manipulating the handheld device; identifying a gesture from the positions and movements of one or more fingers of a user manipulating the handheld device; identifying a recognized gesture corresponding to the identified gesture; and dispatching an event notifying the gesture to an application.
Pelvis discloses user interface control of a head-worn computer which also receives and interprets control inputs such as gestures and movements. The head worn computer relates with external user interfaces used in connection with to head worn computing. Pelvis discloses a well-known technique of displaying a menu and then using a finger swipe gesture across the touch sensor to initiate scrolling thru a menu is a user controlling an interface through gesture recognition of a movement improves the user’s control of items displayed on an interface.
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev and Pelis the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Pelis’ teachings improve the user control and response of a touch and display interface by recognizing the user is interacting with said interface and responding to a user swipe gesture upon the interface to cause the scrolling through data presented on the interface.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Erivantcev and Pelis do teach (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling However Erivantcev in view of Pelis does not teach (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;
Speck teaches a user wearing an input device which is designed as a ring and can record data of the relative position of at least one finger of a hand with respect to the input device (i.e. including movement of the finger) and Speck discloses incorporating movements of a hand into an input. Speck through its ability to incorporated hand movements into input controls teaches which is continued based on the motion sensor data. As discussed above Erivantcev in view of Pelis teaches a ring input device and a touch sensor which for example, when there is a manipulation movement of one or more finger on a sensor data presented on a display is scrolled and this is well known in the art of controlling a display input and interface. Speck teaches that a gradation of commands, whether … or via the motion sensors, … while when swiping with the entire hand, that is recorded with a motion sensor, a faster scrolling or browsing is triggered. [Speck para 0116]
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev, Pelis and Speck in the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Speck improves users control of a touch and display interface by allowing the input device to learn hand movements which are recognized through motion sensors tracking hand movements and then converted into simple gestures to control the data input and response of a touch and display interface.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 33 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 31 in addition Erivantcev teaches comprising any of a watch, a smart band, a mobile phone, a headset, electronic clothing and electronic eyewear. the input device of FIG. 4 includes a communication device … the processed data from the microcontroller to a host computing device (e.g., a smartphone, a personal computer, a laptop computer, a game console, a virtual reality headset). [Erivantcev para 0042]
Regarding claim 34 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 31 in addition Erivantcev teaches wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to be worn on a wrist of an arm. the processed sensor data comprises one or more of gyroscope vector data, acceleration vector data, quaternion rotation data, spatial coordinate data of a hand or wrist, and touch data from the one or more touch input devices. [Erivantcev para 0016]
Regarding claim 35 Erivantcev teaches
a method, performed by an electronic device system comprising a wearable electronic device The hand-worn devices can be used for interaction with VR/AR applications implemented on mobile platforms for data input and/or control interface [Erivantcev para 0037]
and an electronic ring-shaped device one ring (104b) includes a touch pad (106) mounted on the ring (104b) [Erivantcev para 0043]
and wherein the wearable electronic device comprises a motion sensor, include multiple-sensor, hand-worn devices for motion capturing and positioning of hand and fingers in virtual reality (“VR”) or augmented/mixed reality (“AR”) applications (collectively, “VR/AR” applications) and controlling computing devices via gesture recognition. [Erivantcev para 0037]
and wherein the electronic ring-shaped device comprises one or more touch sensors, one ring (104b) includes a touch pad (106) mounted on the ring (104b) [Erivantcev para 0043]
the method comprising: communicating, by the electronic ring-shaped device, touch sensor data from the one or more touch sensors to the wearable electronic device adapted to receive touch inputs activated by the thumb of the same hand of the user including one or more click buttons incorporated into the touch pad mount. [Erivantcev para 0043];
and controlling a user interface (UI), by the wearable electronic device, based on the touch sensor data and further based on motion sensor data from the motion sensor. controlling computing devices via gesture recognition. [Erivantcev para 0037] The hand-worn devices can also be used to implement intuitive gestures that are standard on touch screen on smartphones and mouse-based graphical user interfaces, such as sliding, swiping, zooming, selecting, pointing, and clicking [Erivantcev para 0039]
However, Erivantcev does not explicitly teach (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;
Pelis teaches a known technique of using a single finger swipe gesture by using a finger and running it across the touch sensor to affect a page scroll which teaches (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling. More specifically Pelis teaches if the user launches an email application, the user may automatically be presented with a ‘reader's’ user interface such as a projected or displayed touch pad. The user may use the touch pad to interact with the email program to assist in reading, scrolling, moving to another email, etc. [Pelis para 0097] The touch sensor 220 may be used to take gesture style input from the user. For example, the user may be able to take a single finger and run it across the touch sensor 220 to affect a page scroll. [Pelis para 0037]
Erivantcev discloses a data input device and method of operating the same. In one embodiment, a data input device comprises a plurality of inertial sensor units, one or more touch input devices, a microcontroller configured to collect sensor data from the inertial sensors and the one or more touch input devices and process the sensor data to generate processed sensor data, and a wireless transceiver configured to transmit the processed sensor data to a host computer. In another embodiment, a method comprises receiving sensor data from a handheld device; calculating hand movement characteristics in three dimensional space based on the sensor data; calculating the position and orientation of the components of the handheld device; identifying positions and movements of one or more fingers of a user manipulating the handheld device; identifying a gesture from the positions and movements of one or more fingers of a user manipulating the handheld device; identifying a recognized gesture corresponding to the identified gesture; and dispatching an event notifying the gesture to an application.
Pelvis discloses user interface control of a head-worn computer which also receives and interprets control inputs such as gestures and movements. The head worn computer relates with external user interfaces used in connection with to head worn computing. Pelvis discloses a well-known technique of displaying a menu and then using a finger swipe gesture across the touch sensor to initiate scrolling thru a menu is a user controlling an interface through gesture recognition of a movement improves the user’s control of items displayed on an interface.
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev and Pelis the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Pelis’ teachings improve the user control and response of a touch and display interface by recognizing the user is interacting with said interface and responding to a user swipe gesture upon the interface to cause the scrolling through data presented on the interface.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Erivantcev and Pelis do teach (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling However Erivantcev in view of Pelis does not teach (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;
Speck teaches a user wearing an input device which is designed as a ring and can record data of the relative position of at least one finger of a hand with respect to the input device (i.e. including movement of the finger) and Speck discloses incorporating movements of a hand into an input. Speck through its ability to incorporated hand movements into input controls teaches which is continued based on the motion sensor data. As discussed above Erivantcev in view of Pelis teaches a ring input device and a touch sensor which for example, when there is a manipulation movement of one or more finger on a sensor data presented on a display is scrolled and this is well known in the art of controlling a display input and interface. Speck teaches that a gradation of commands, whether … or via the motion sensors, … while when swiping with the entire hand, that is recorded with a motion sensor, a faster scrolling or browsing is triggered. [Speck para 0116]
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev, Pelis and Speck in the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Speck improves users control of a touch and display interface by allowing the input device to learn hand movements which are recognized through motion sensors tracking hand movements and then converted into simple gestures to control the data input and response of a touch and display interface.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 36 Erivantcev teaches
an electronic device system comprising a wearable electronic device The hand-worn devices can be used for interaction with VR/AR applications implemented on mobile platforms for data input and/or control interface [Erivantcev para 0037]
and an electronic ring-shaped device, one ring (104b) includes a touch pad (106) mounted on the ring (104b) [Erivantcev para 0043]
wherein the wearable electronic device comprises a motion sensor, include multiple-sensor, hand-worn devices for motion capturing and positioning of hand and fingers in virtual reality (“VR”) or augmented/mixed reality (“AR”) applications (collectively, “VR/AR” applications) and controlling computing devices via gesture recognition. [Erivantcev para 0037]
and wherein the electronic ring-shaped device comprises one or more touch sensors, one ring (104b) includes a touch pad (106) mounted on the ring (104b) [Erivantcev para 0043]
wherein the electronic device system is configured to: communicate, by the electronic ring-shaped device, touch sensor data from the one or more touch sensors to the wearable electronic device adapted to receive touch inputs activated by the thumb of the same hand of the user including one or more click buttons incorporated into the touch pad mount. [Erivantcev para 0043];
and control a user interface (UI) by the wearable electronic device, based on the touch sensor data and further based on motion sensor data from the motion sensor. include multiple-sensor, hand-worn devices for motion capturing and positioning of hand and fingers in virtual reality (“VR”) or augmented/mixed reality (“AR”) applications (collectively, “VR/AR” applications) and controlling computing devices via gesture recognition.
However, Erivantcev does not explicitly teach (1) wherein said controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;
Pelis teaches a known technique of using a single finger swipe gesture by using a finger and running it across the touch sensor to affect a page scroll which teaches (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling. More specifically Pelis teaches if the user launches an email application, the user may automatically be presented with a ‘reader's’ user interface such as a projected or displayed touch pad. The user may use the touch pad to interact with the email program to assist in reading, scrolling, moving to another email, etc. [Pelis para 0097] The touch sensor 220 may be used to take gesture style input from the user. For example, the user may be able to take a single finger and run it across the touch sensor 220 to affect a page scroll. [Pelis para 0037]
Erivantcev discloses a data input device and method of operating the same. In one embodiment, a data input device comprises a plurality of inertial sensor units, one or more touch input devices, a microcontroller configured to collect sensor data from the inertial sensors and the one or more touch input devices and process the sensor data to generate processed sensor data, and a wireless transceiver configured to transmit the processed sensor data to a host computer. In another embodiment, a method comprises receiving sensor data from a handheld device; calculating hand movement characteristics in three dimensional space based on the sensor data; calculating the position and orientation of the components of the handheld device; identifying positions and movements of one or more fingers of a user manipulating the handheld device; identifying a gesture from the positions and movements of one or more fingers of a user manipulating the handheld device; identifying a recognized gesture corresponding to the identified gesture; and dispatching an event notifying the gesture to an application.
Pelvis discloses user interface control of a head-worn computer which also receives and interprets control inputs such as gestures and movements. The head worn computer relates with external user interfaces used in connection with to head worn computing. Pelvis discloses a well-known technique of displaying a menu and then using a finger swipe gesture across the touch sensor to initiate scrolling thru a menu is a user controlling an interface through gesture recognition of a movement improves the user’s control of items displayed on an interface.
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev and Pelis the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Pelis’ teachings improve the user control and response of a touch and display interface by recognizing the user is interacting with said interface and responding to a user swipe gesture upon the interface to cause the scrolling through data presented on the interface.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Erivantcev and Pelis do teach (1) wherein controlling the UI comprises scrolling through items of the display and (2) wherein the touch sensor data initiates the scrolling However Erivantcev in view of Pelis does not teach (3) which is continued based on the motion sensor data;
Speck teaches a user wearing an input device which is designed as a ring and can record data of the relative position of at least one finger of a hand with respect to the input device (i.e. tracking the movement of a hand). Speck discloses incorporating movements of a hand into an input. Speck through its ability to incorporated hand movements into input controls teaches continuing an action such as scrolling based on the motion sensor data. Speck uses well known techniques to interpret and convert tracked hand movement into an input gestures which can make the scrolling occurring on a display faster through gesture recognition.
As discussed above Erivantcev in view of Pelis teaches a ring input device and a touch sensor which for example, when there is a manipulation movement of one or more finger on a sensor data presented on a display is scrolled and this is well known in the art of controlling a display input and interface. Speck teaches that a gradation of commands, whether … or via the motion sensors, … while when swiping with the entire hand, that is recorded with a motion sensor, a faster scrolling or browsing is triggered. [Speck para 0116] Speck through the use of motion captured by a motion sensor makes scrolling faster which is to say that a second user gesture can increase the speed of the scrolling already occurring on the display as a faster scrolling can only occur if scrolling was already occurring on the display.
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev, Pelis and Speck in the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Speck improves users control of a touch and display interface by allowing the input device to learn hand movements which are recognized through motion sensors tracking hand movements and then converted into simple gestures to control the data input and response of a touch and display interface.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 22, 23, 25, 28, 32 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck, and further in view of Vescovi et al., US Patent Application (20150277559), hereinafter “Vescovi”
Regarding claim 22 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition Speck teaches controlling is based on a second touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring-shaped device. a gradation of commands, whether via the recording unit or via the motion sensors, is possible. For example, when there is a manipulation movement of one or more finger a virtual sensor is slowly scrolled, while when swiping with the entire hand, that is recorded with a motion sensor, a faster scrolling or browsing is triggered. [Speck para 0116] (scrolling faster is also continuing scrolling) the input device furthermore comprises at least one accelerometer and/or a gyroscope, by means of which spatial changes of position of the input device can be recorded. [Speck para 0109]
Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck does not expressly teach but Vescovi teaches comprising:
triggering controlling the UI based on the touch sensor data and further based on the motion sensor data, wherein the triggering is based on a first touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring-shaped the response of the device to inputs detected by the device depends on criteria based on the contact intensity during the input. For example, for some “light press” inputs, the intensity of a contact exceeding a first intensity threshold during the input triggers a first response. [Vescovi para 0129]
Vescovi discloses known hardware and user controls of an external electronic device with a finger-ring-mounted touchscreen that includes a computer processor, wireless transceiver, and rechargeable power source; the ring is worn on a first finger receives an input from a second finger, selects one of a plurality of touch events associated with the input, and wirelessly transmits a command associated with the touch event to the external electronic device.
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev, Pelis, Speck and Vescovi in the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Vescovi improves touch detection accuracy by using the ring computing device to automatically detect whether it is being worn on the user's right or left hand and on which finger thereon, and this information may be used to improve the accuracy of the detection.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition further Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck does not teach but Vescovi teaches further comprising: activating a function of the UI based on further touch sensor data from the electronic ring-shaped device. the touch screen, device 700 optionally includes a touchpad (not shown) for activating or deactivating particular functions. [Vescovi para 0055]
Regarding claim 25 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition further Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck does not teach but Vescovi teaches wherein controlling the UI comprises moving a cursor on a display of the UI and/or moving a content of the display. the device translates the rough finger-based input into a precise pointer/cursor position or command for performing the actions desired by the user. [Vescovi para 0054]
Regarding claim 28 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition further Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck does not teach but Vescovi teaches wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI) of the wearable electronic device. GUI updater 778 prepares display information and sends it to graphics module 732 for display on a touch-sensitive display. [Vescovi para 0117]
Regarding claim 32 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck s teaches everything in claim 31 in addition further Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck is does not teach but Vescovi teaches being further configured to trigger controlling the UI based on the touch sensor data and further based on the motion sensor data, Use of the ring computing device … and/or paired computer to disable the computer touch pad to thereby prevent errant gestures made thereto. [Vescovi para 0161] wherein the triggering is based on a first touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring-shaped device the response of the device to inputs detected by the device depends on criteria based on the contact intensity during the input. For example, for some “light press” inputs, the intensity of a contact exceeding a first intensity threshold during the input triggers a first response. [Vescovi para 0129] and controlling is based on a second touch sensor data communicated from the electronic ring-shaped device. for some “deep press” inputs, the intensity of a contact exceeding a second intensity threshold during the input, greater than the first intensity threshold for a light press, triggers a second response only if a delay time has elapsed between meeting the first intensity threshold and meeting the second intensity threshold. [Vescovi para 0129]
Vescovi discloses known hardware and user controls of an external electronic device with a finger-ring-mounted touchscreen that includes a computer processor, wireless transceiver, and rechargeable power source; the ring is worn on a first finger receives an input from a second finger, selects one of a plurality of touch events associated with the input, and wirelessly transmits a command associated with the touch event to the external electronic device.
Therefore, prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Erivantcev, Pelis, Speck and Vescovi in the art of touch and display data input devices and operating the same, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Vescovi improves touch detection accuracy by using the ring computing device to automatically detect whether it is being worn on the user's right or left hand and on which finger thereon, and this information may be used to improve the accuracy of the detection.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is
that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 39 Erivantcev, Pelvis and Speck teaches everything in claim 21 in addition further Erivantcev and Pelvis does not teach but Vescovi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising, stored thereupon, a computer program comprising computer readable code units configured so that when executed on a processor the computer readable code units cause the processor to perform the method of claim 21. executable instructions for performing these functions are, optionally, included in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium or other computer program product configured for execution by one or more processors. [Vescovi para 0009]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MICHAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3981. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached on 571-272-7603. 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.
/ROBERT J MICHAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights