DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the claim filed on 08/12/2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1-9, 12-16, 21-25 are pending. Claims 1, 16, and 25 are independent claims.
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 .
Double Patenting
In the Response filed on 08/12/2026, Applicants state that the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until all other claim rejections have been withdrawn. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejections are being maintained as rejected in the previous action mailed on 05/14/2026.
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 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.
Claims 1-9, 12-16, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravasz et al. (US 2020/0387228 A1; hereinafter Ravasz) in view of Anderson et al. (US 11,150,730 B1; hereinafter Anderson) further in view of Pastrana Vicente et al. (US 2022/0121344 A1; hereinafter Pastrana).
As to claim 1, Ravasz teaches:
A system (see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0022) comprising:
a processor (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0049-0051); and
a memory storing programming instructions for execution by the processor, the programming instructions, upon execution by the processor, causing the system to perform the following operations (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0050-0051):
displaying an object in a docked position of an environment (see Fig. 7A and ¶ 0073; UI menu 124 is displayed in a first position [~docked position]);
detecting at least a hand position or motion of a user and an eye gaze of the user (see Fig. 7C and ¶ 0084; the user has moved their hand while maintaining the menu activation gesture. ¶ 0005, 0027, 0055, 0062; the artificial reality system may further trigger generation and rendering of the graphical user interface elements in response to detection of particular gestures in combination with other conditions, such as the position and orientation of the particular gestures in a physical environment relative to a current field of view of the user, which may be determined by real-time gaze tracking of the user, or relative to a pose of an HIVID worn by the user);
responsive to detecting the hand position or motion of the user and the eye gaze of the user, moving the object from the docked position of the environment to an undocked position in the environment (see Fig. 7D and ¶ 0084; The artificial reality system can reposition the virtual hand 136 and the slidably engageable UI element 706 in accordance with the motion of the user's hand such that the virtual hand 136 and slidably engageable UI element 706 are in proximity to menu item 712).
Ravasz does not appear to teach:
starting a timer in response to detecting a loss of at least one of the eye gaze of the user or the hand position or motion of the user; and
continuing to display the object in the undocked position at least until expiration of the timer.
However, Anderson is relied upon for teaching the deficient limitations:
starting a timer in response to detecting a loss of at least one of the eye gaze of the user or the hand position or motion of the user (see Fig. 10D and Co. 22, lines 32-41; open hand pose 1008 [~loss of at least one of the eye gaze of the user or the hand position or motion of the user], the user may need to hold open hand pose 1008 for a predetermined amount of time [~start a timer]); and
continuing to display the object in the undocked position at least until expiration of the timer (see Fig. 10D and Co. 22, lines 32-41; the user may need to hold open hand pose 1008 for a predetermined amount of time before application system 230 executes and/or performs the deactivation command where the radical menu 1000 may be obscured and/or hidden from view within the GUI).
The references, each discloses a technique for interacting with user interface in augmented reality environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Ravasz and the teaching of Anderson together to provide a system for displaying and interacting with user interface in a virtual reality as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Anderson to improve user experience with a user interface of a virtual reality (Anderson: see ¶ 0084).
Ravasz and Anderson do not appear to teach that the detecting at least a hand position or motion of the user and an eye gaze of the user is within a threshold period.
Pastrana is relied upon for teaching the deficient limitation. Specifically, Pastrana teaches detecting at least a hand position or motion of the user and an eye gaze of the user is within a threshold period (see Fig. 11B and ¶ 0235; corresponds to the request to move the first virtual object (e.g., 1106c) in the user interface in accordance with a determination that the first user input includes a respective gesture performed by a hand (e.g., 1104d) of a user of the electronic device while a gaze (e.g., 1110e) of the user is directed to the respective user interface element (e.g., 1180c), followed by movement of the hand (e.g., 1104d) of the user of the electronic device within a time threshold (e.g., 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.5, 1, etc. seconds) of detecting the respective gesture performed by the hand (e.g., 1104d) of the user (1208a), such as in FIG. 11B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Ravasz/Anderson and the teaching of Pastrana together to provide a system for displaying and interacting with user interface in a virtual reality using the predefined user input as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Pastrana to facilitate interactions with selectable user interface elements and provides enhanced visual feedback (Pastrana: see ¶ 0030).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein a combination of the eye gaze of the user and the hand position or motion of the user within the threshold period is associated with an intention to use or otherwise move the object to the docked position (Ravasz: see Fig. 7C-7D and ¶ 0084; the user activate the menu with an intention to use it. Pastrana: see ¶ 0235; the first user input includes a respective gesture performed by a hand of a user of the electronic device while a gaze of the user is directed to the respective user interface element, followed by movement of the hand (e.g., 1104d) of the user of the electronic device within a time threshold). Thus, combining Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: returning the object from the undocked position to the docked position upon expiration of the timer (Anderson: see Fig. 10D and Co. 22, lines 32-57; as the user holds open hand pose 1008 for the predetermined duration, the circle may transition from empty to filled (or from filled to empty), and/or selection indicator 1020 and action indicators 1040 and 1050 may no longer be displayed within the GUI). Thus, combining Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: detecting, prior to expiration of the timer, a gesture from the user indicating an intention by the user to use or otherwise maintain the object in the undocked position; and continuing to display the object in the docked position of the environment in response to detecting the gesture from the user indicating an intention by the user to use or otherwise maintain the object in the undocked position (Anderson: see Fig. 10D and Co. 22, lines 32-57; the user may need to hold open hand pose 1008 for a predetermined amount of time before application system 230 executes and/or performs the deactivation command where the radical menu 1000 may be obscured and/or hidden from view within the GUI [~if the user cancel open hand pose before predetermined amount of time, deactiviation command does not execute]). Thus, combining Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein the object is continuously displayed in the docked position of the environment after expiration, or anticipated expiration, of the timer (Anderson: see Fig. 10D and Co. 22, lines 32-57; In another example, state indicator 1010, selection indicator 1020, and/or action indicators 1040 and 1050 may remain displayed within the GUI following the deactivation command However, radial menu 1000 may not recognize and/or response to a subsequent selection (e.g., a wrist gesture) or click (e.g., a finger pinch pose) command until receiving a subsequent activation command). Thus, combining Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein both the hand position or motion of the user and the gesture indicating the intention by the user to use or maintain the object in the undocked position use a commn hand of the user (Anderson: see Fig. 10A-10D). Thus, combining Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein the gesture indicating the intention by the user to use or maintain the object includes a return of the hand position or motion of the user (Anderson: see Fig. 10A-10D and Co. 22, lines 32-57). Thus, combining Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein the hand position or motion of the user and the gesture indicating the intention by the user to use or maintain the object use different hands of the user (Ravasz: see ¶ 0031; Although only right hand 132 and right arm 134 of user 110 are illustrated in FIG. 1A, in other examples, artificial reality system 10 may identify a left hand and/or arm of user 110 or both right and left hands and/or arms of user 110. In this way, artificial reality system 10 may detect single-handed gestures performed by either hand, double-handed gestures, or arm-based gestures within the physical environment, and generate associated user interface elements in response to the detected gestures).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein the gesture indicating the intention by the user to use or maintain the object is detected concurrently with the eye gaze of the user (Ravasz: see Fig. 7C and ¶ 0005, 0062, 0084; the user has moved their hand while maintaining the menu activation. Pastrana: see ¶ 0235; the first user input includes a respective gesture performed by a hand of a user of the electronic device while a gaze of the user is directed to the respective user interface element, followed by movement of the hand (e.g., 1104d) of the user of the electronic device within a time threshold). Thus, combining Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein the object is a digital object (Ravasz: see Fig. 7A-7B and ¶ 0022, 0026-0027; object 124).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein the digital object is a control object (Ravasz: see Fig. 7A-7B and ¶ 0022, 0026-0027; menu object 124).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein the control object includes a menu, a keyboard, an input panel, a virtual display, or a virtual touchscreen (Ravasz: see Fig. 7A-7B and ¶ 0022, 0026-0027; menu object 124).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ravasz/Anderson/Pastrana further teach: wherein the environment is an augmented reality (AR) environment (Ravasz: see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0024, 0076).
As to claims 16, 21-24, claims 16, 21-24 are directed to a method for implementing the features similar to claims 1-5, respectively, therefore, are rejected under similar rationale (Ravasz: see ¶ 0065-0066).
As to claim 25, claim 25 is directed to one or more computer storage devices having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, which, upon execution by a processor, cause the processor to perform similar functions as claimed in claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (Ravasz: see ¶ 0049-0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 12-16, 21-25 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
