DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response received 05/06/2026 for 18367036. Claims 1-26 are pending.
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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the objection to claims 6 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive because the arguments do not apply to the newly cited Xu reference being used in the current rejection.
Claims 12 and 23 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remain rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-22, and 24-26 remain rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claims 1, 12, and 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 20220374138 A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN 115421642 A).
As to claim 1, Zhou discloses a method comprising:
at an electronic device having a processor [para 0070, 0078, device includes processor]:
displaying an extended reality (XR) environment corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) environment [Fig. 1, para 0070-0071, 0076, device displays visual information in space (read: three-dimensional environment) referenced by augmented reality (read: extended reality)], wherein the XR environment depicts:
a portion of a user [Figs. 1, 4, para 0076, 0088-0090, device displays video capturing user hand]; and
a user interface comprising a user interface element [Figs. 1, 3, para 0069, 0076, device displays user interface including UI element];
tracking a movement of the portion of the user [para 0081, 0088-0090, capture user hand gesture movement];
determining a convergence rate based on the movement of the portion of the user, wherein the convergence rate specifies a rate at which the user interface element will move … between user interface element and the portion of the user in the XR environment [para 0005, 0082, 0091, set control display gain representing proportion of element movement based on captured hand gesture movement, note element moving in direction of gesture movement falls under broadest reasonable interpretation of convergence including moving toward uniformity]; and
moving the user interface element … in the XR environment based on the movement of the portion of the user, wherein the user interface element converges with the portion of the user in the XR environment based on the convergence rate [para 0071, 0090-0094, move UI element based on detected hand gesture, where UI element moves in same direction as hand gesture performed in augmented reality space based on configured gain, note UI element moving in same direction as hand gesture falls under broadest reasonable interpretation of converges including moving toward a point].
While Zhou does not teach "wherein the convergence rate specifies a rate at which the user interface element will move to reduce distance between user interface element and the portion of the user" and "moving the user interface element to intersect with the portion of the user", one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the limitations "to reduce distance between user interface element and the portion of the user" and "to intersect with the portion of the user" are intended results of the "move" and "moving" limitations and are not relevant to patentability [see MPEP 2111.04].
Nevertheless, in an effort to advance compact prosecution, Xu teaches:
wherein the convergence rate specifies a rate at which the user interface element will move to reduce distance between user interface element and the portion of the user in the XR environment [Figs. 7-8, pgs. 12:1, 26:4-6, 28:7-29:2, determine displacement difference (read: convergence rate) sliding target control (read: user interface element) to chase (read: reduce distance) finger touch point (read: user potion) as applied in augmented reality (read: extended reality environment)]; and
moving the user interface element to intersect with the portion of the user in the XR environment based on the movement of the portion of the user [Fig. 7, pgs. 25:2-3, 25:6-8, 26:5-6, slide target control so target control displacement is equal to (read: intersect) displacement of sliding finger touch point]
Zhou and Xu are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of extended reality systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the environment and user interface element movement as disclosed by Zhou with movement reducing distance between user interface element and the portion of the user in the XR environment to intersect with the portion of the user in the XR environment as disclosed by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Zhou as described above to improve the user experience [Xu, pgs. 26:6, 29:2].
As to claim 2, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein tracking the movement of the portion of the user comprises tracking the movement along a path [Fig. 4, para 0081, 0088-0090, capture user hand gesture movement in a right direction (read: path, note broadest reasonable interpretation of path includes any positions assumed in any motion)].
As to claim 3, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface element follows the portion of the user and converges … with the portion of the user during the movement [para 0071, 0090-0094, UI element moves in same direction (read: follows) as captured hand gesture].
While Zhou does not teach "wherein the user interface element converges to catch up with the portion of the user during the movement", one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the limitation "to catch up with the portion of the user during the movement" is an intended result of the "converging" and is not relevant to patentability [see MPEP 2111.04].
Nevertheless, in an effort to advance compact prosecution, Xu teaches wherein the user interface element follows the portion of the user and converges to catch up with the portion of the user during the movement [Figs. 7-9, pgs. 25:2-3, 25:6-8, 26:5-6, slide target control chasing (read: follows) finger touch point so target control displacement is equal to (read: catches up) displacement of sliding finger touch point].
Zhou and Xu are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of extended reality systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify following user interface element as disclosed by Zhou with moving an element to follow and catch up with a user portion as disclosed by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Zhou as described above to improve the user experience [Xu, pgs. 26:6, 29:2].
As to claim 4, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the convergence rate comprises determining a zero convergence rate based on determining that the portion of the user is not moving [Fig. 20E, para 0124, remove slider tail indicating no (read: zero) gain in response to recognizing termination of hand gesture].
As to claim 5, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the convergence rate comprises determining a first convergence rate based on determining that the portion of the user is moving slower than a threshold speed [Figs. 20A-20E, para 0005, 0094, 0096, 0124, compute lower gain (read: first convergence rate) as detected speed of hand gesture is slower than fast gesture speed (read: threshold speed)].
As to claim 6, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the convergence rate comprises determining a second convergence rate when the portion of the user is moving quicker than a threshold speed, wherein a first convergence rate is slower than the second convergence rate [Figs. 20A-20E, para 0005, 0094, 0096, 0124, compute higher gain (read: second convergence rate) as detected speed of hand gesture becomes faster than fast gesture speed (read: threshold speed) and as compared to lower gain (read: first convergence rate)].
As to claim 7, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the convergence rate is proportional to a speed of the movement [Figs. 20A-20E, para 0082, 0096, 0103, 0124, determine gain as directly proportional to detected speed of hand gesture].
As to claim 8, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the user is a fingertip [Figs. 1, 4, para 0076, 0089, user fingers performing gesture].
As to claim 9, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the user is a hand [Figs. 1, 4, para 0076, 0088-0090, user hand performing gesture].
As to claim 10, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface element comprises a scroll bar or a slider on a two-dimensional user interface [Figs. 3, 5, para 0005, 0070, 0087, UI element is a slider bar user interface including at least a horizontal orientation and vertical scale ticks].
As to claim 11, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a head-mounted device [para 0084-0086, system includes head-mounted display].
As to claim 12, Zhou and Xu, combined at least for the reasons above, Zhou discloses a system [para 0070, 0078, system includes device] comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [para 0070, 0080, device includes non-transitory memory]; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations [para 0070, 0080, device includes processor executing instructions stored in memory] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 13-22, Zhou and Xu, combined at least for the reasons above, Zhou discloses the system of claim 12 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 2-11, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 23, Zhou and Xu, combined at least for the reasons above, Zhou discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions executable via one or more processors to perform operations [para 0070, 0080, non-transitory memory includes instructions executed by processor] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 24-25, Zhou and Xu, combined at least for the reasons above, Zhou discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 23 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 2-3, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 26, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the convergence rate changes over time during the movement of the portion of the user based on changes in speed of the portion of the user during the movement of the portion of the user [Figs. 20A-20C, para 0096, 0124, actively compute gain as detected speed of hand gesture varies speed with time throughout hand gesture].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Day et al. (US 20200135141 A1) generally discloses determining a convergence rate between a user movement and a user interface element.
Balan et al. (US 20150040040 A1) generally discloses a user interface element following and converging with a user movement corresponding to a three-dimensional environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights