DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims contain new matter.
Regarding independent claim 1, the original specification does not teach “a first user who is creating parameters of the holdable object”. The original specification merely teaches in response to the determination instruction of the first user to determine the holding parameters of the holdable object, determining the position holding parameters or posture holding parameters of the holdable object . See Specification at [48], [58], [102], [130], [134], [136], [269], [271], [278], [280]. The original specification also teaches in response to the calibration instruction of the first user for the gesture information of the calibration object, determining gesture holding parameters of the holdable object according to the gesture information. Specification at [106], [137], [272], [281]. The newly amended limitation includes claim scope that is broader than the teaching of the original specification. Claims 5, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1 and share the rejection.
Regarding independent claim 11, the original specification does not teach “a first user who is creating parameters of the holdable object”. The original specification merely teaches in response to the determination instruction of the first user to determine the holding parameters of the holdable object, determining the position holding parameters or posture holding parameters of the holdable object . See Specification at [48], [58], [102], [130], [134], [136], [269], [271], [278], [280]. The original specification also teaches in response to the calibration instruction of the first user for the gesture information of the calibration object, determining gesture holding parameters of the holdable object according to the gesture information. Specification at [106], [137], [272], [281]. The newly amended limitation includes claim scope that is broader than the teaching of the original specification.
Regarding independent claim 12, the original specification does not teach “a first user who is creating parameters of the holdable object”. The original specification merely teaches in response to the determination instruction of the first user to determine the holding parameters of the holdable object, determining the position holding parameters or posture holding parameters of the holdable object . See Specification at [48], [58], [102], [130], [134], [136], [269], [271], [278], [280]. The original specification also teaches in response to the calibration instruction of the first user for the gesture information of the calibration object, determining gesture holding parameters of the holdable object according to the gesture information. Specification at [106], [137], [272], [281]. The newly amended limitation includes claim scope that is broader than the teaching of the original specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Note that citations to figures and elements should be understood to also implicitly refer to any pertinent explanatory text in the reference.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0157203 A1 (Latta).
Regarding claim 1, Latta teaches a method for determining holding parameters ([37]-[40]), comprising:
displaying a holdable object at a first position ([37]-[40]; Fig. 6B, 6C, 6D at 40), and
displaying a calibration object to calibrate a holding position of the holdable object by a first user who is creating parameters of the holdable object ([37]-[40]: element 82 may be moved to a distance from the holdable object, i.e. calibrating a holding position of the holdable object, [51]: element 82 may be used to define (calibrate) a holding position by drawing a circle around the holdable object);
controlling the calibration object to move to a second position by performing a movement operation on the calibration object ([37]-[40]);
adjusting position holding parameters of the holdable object by adjusting the second position of the calibration object ([38]-[40], [43]-[47]: position holding parameters of the holdable object read may be interpreted as holdable object coordinates) and
determining the position holding parameters of the holdable object based on the adjusted second position of the calibration object ([38]-[40], [43]-[47]: position holding parameters of the holdable object read may be interpreted as holdable object coordinates related to holding position).
Regarding claim 5, Latta teaches acquiring a position of a center of the calibration object or a position of a bone point corresponding to the calibration object (Abstract; [18], [23]-[24], [27], [37], [62]); and using the position of the center or the position of the bone point corresponding to the calibration object as the second position (Abstract; [18], [23]-[24], [27], [37], [62]).
Regarding claim 8, Latta teaches in response to a holding operation of a second user on the holdable object, acquiring control parameters of a control device of the second user; and displaying the holdable object according to the control parameters of the control device and position holding parameters of the holdable object, the control parameters of the control device comprising position control parameters ([37]-[40], [48]-[49], [54]: additional hand may be considered control device of a second user – this corresponds to teaching in paragraph [110] of Applicant’s specification as filed). Latta teaches in response to a holding operation of a second user on the holdable object, acquiring control parameters of a control device of the second user ([48]-[49], [54]: additional hand may be considered control device of a second user – this corresponds to teaching in paragraph [110] of Applicant’s specification as filed); and displaying the holdable object according to the control parameters of the control device ([48]-[49], [54]) and posture holding parameters of the holdable object ([48]-[49], [54]: parameters defining response of holdable object to grip gesture and motion), the control parameters of the control device comprising position control parameters and posture control parameters ([48]-[49], [54]: location of hands and grip gesture of hands).
Regarding claim 11, Latta teaches an electronic device ([10], [64]-[69]); Fig. 1 at 12, Fig. 14 at 60), comprising:
at least one processor ([66]-[67]); and
a memory configured to store executable instructions ([67]-[69]) wherein the executable instructions, upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations ([64]-[69]), and the operations comprise:
displaying a holdable object at a first position ([37]-[40]; Fig. 6B, 6C, 6D at 40), and displaying a calibration object to calibrate a holding position of the holdable object by a first user who is creating parameters of the holdable object ([37]-[40]: element 82 may be moved to a distance from the holdable object, i.e. calibrating a holding position of the holdable object, [51]: element 82 may be used to define (calibrate) a holding position by drawing a circle around the holdable object),
controlling the calibration object to move to a second position by performing a movement operation on the calibration object ([37]-[40]),
adjusting position holding parameters of the holdable object by adjusting the second position of the calibration object ([38]-[40], [43]-[47]: position holding parameters of the holdable object read may be interpreted as holdable object coordinates related to holding position), and
determining the position holding parameters of the holdable object based on the adjusted second position of the calibration object ([38]-[40], [43]-[47]: position holding parameters of the holdable object read may be interpreted as holdable object coordinates related to holding position).
Regarding claim 12, Latta teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored ([67]-[69]), wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor ([66]-[67]), causes the processor to implement operations ([64]-[69]) comprising:
displaying a holdable object at a first position ([37]-[40]; Fig. 6B, 6C, 6D at 40), and displaying a calibration object to calibrate a holding position of the holdable object by a first user who is creating parameters of the holdable object ([37]-[40]: element 82 may be moved to a distance from the holdable object, i.e. calibrating a holding position of the holdable object, [51]: element 82 may be used to define (calibrate) a holding position by drawing a circle around the holdable object);
controlling the calibration object to move to a second position by performing a movement operation on the calibration object ([37]-[40]);
adjusting position holding parameters of the holdable object by adjusting the second position of the calibration object ([38]-[40], [43]-[47]: position holding parameters of the holdable object read may be interpreted as holdable object coordinates related to holding position); and
determining the position holding parameters of the holdable object based on the adjusted second position of the calibration object ([38]-[40], [43]-[47]: position holding parameters of the holdable object read may be interpreted as holdable object coordinates related to holding position).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0157203 A1 (Latta) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2016/0306431 A1 (“Stafford”).
Regarding claim 9, Latta teaches wherein the holding operation of the second user on the holdable object is a grabbing operation and the method further comprises: in response to the grabbing operation of the second user on the holdable object, displaying the hand according to gesture holding parameters ([48]-[49], [54]). Latta does not expressly teach that the control device is a handheld device. Stafford teaches a control device is a handheld device (a glove) that is capable of performing an input gesture that is detectable by a user interface and may be displayed accordingly (Abstract; [153]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Latta by the teaching of Stafford is present as Latta teaches that an input glove may be used ([81]) and Stafford teaches that a glove may allow for detectable gestures. The motivation is to provide an additional input option for a user. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Latta teaches detecting hand gestures while Stafford teaches using a glove to detect hand gestures. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Latta and Stafford would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the holding operation of the second user on the holdable object is a grabbing operation, the control device is a handheld device, and the method further comprises: in response to the grabbing operation of the second user on the holdable object, displaying the handheld object according to gesture holding parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Latta does not teach the newly amended limitation “displaying a calibration object to calibrate a holding position of the holdable object by a first user who is creating parameters of the holdable object”. However, Applicant does not provide a claim construction for this limitation, and fails to explain why the newly amended limitation does not read onto the teaching of Latta. As explained in the new grounds of rejection, Latta teaches displaying a calibration object to calibrate a holding position of the holdable object by a first user who is creating parameters of the holdable object ([37]-[40]: element 82 may be moved to a distance from the holdable object, i.e. calibrating a holding position of the holdable object, [51]: element 82 may be used to define (calibrate) a holding position by drawing a circle around the holdable object).
Applicant argues that Latta does not teach the newly amended limitation “determining the position holding parameters of the holdable object based on the adjusted second position of the calibration object”. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because the cited section of Latta has been changed (Latta [38]-[40], [43]-[47]: position holding parameters of the holdable object read may be interpreted as holdable object coordinates related to holding position).
In addition, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) for new matter, as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624