DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the claim filed on 01/22/2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 16, and 20 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
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims as listed in the below table of U.S. Patent No. 11914759 (hereinafter ‘759).
Instant Application 18/419,548
U.S. Patent ‘759
Claim 1. A system comprising:
+ a processor; and
+ a computer-readable medium storing programming instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
Claim 2. A system comprising:
+ a processor; and
+ a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to:
+ display an object in a docked position of an environment;
+ (claim 2) dock the control object to a persistence object within the AR environment;
+ detect at least a first indication of a user and a second indication of the user;
+ perform a multi-factor intention determination for summoning a control object by detecting at least a first indication of a user and a second indication of the user in an augmented reality (AR) environment, the first indication and the second indication belonging to a set of indications that are configured to summon the control object upon detection;
+ based on the detection of at least the first indication and the second indication, move the object from the docked position of the environment to an undocked position in the environment;
+ based on detection of at least the first indication and the second indication, display the control object in a first position proximate to the user in the AR environment [~undocked position];
+(claim 2) perform the multi-factor intention determination for summoning the control object, from a docked position on the persistence object, using a third indication in the AR environment; and based on at least the third indication indicating a summoning request by the user, display the control object in a second position proximate to the user in the AR environment;
+ start a timer in response to detecting a loss of the first indication; and
+ detect a loss of at least the first indication;
+ based on detecting the loss of the first indication, start a timer;
+ continue displaying the object in the undocked position at least until expiration of the timer
+ continue to display the control object at least until the timer has not yet reached an expiration value;
+ detect a gesture from the user; determine that the gesture indicates an intention by the user to use the control object prior to the timer reaching the expiration value; and
+ based on determining that the gesture indicates the intention by the user to use the control object continue to display the control object
Claims 2-5
Claim 2
Claim 6
Claim 4
Claim 7
Claim 2
Claim 8
Claim 5
Claim 9
Claim 6
Claims 10-14
Claim 3
Claim 15
Claim 2
Claims 16-18
Claim 9
Claim 19
Claim 10
Claim 20
Claim 17
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims as listed on the above table of the ‘759 patent contain every element of claims 1-20, respectively of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims as listed on the below table of U.S. Patent No. 12067159 (hereinafter ‘159).
Instant Application 18/419,548
U.S. Patent ‘159
Claim 1. A system comprising:
+ a processor; and
+ a computer-readable medium storing programming instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
Claim 2. A system comprising:
+ a processor; and
+ a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to:
+ detect user actions;
+ perform a multi-factor intention determination on the detected user actions, the multi-factor intention determination including recognizing a first set of indications in an augmented reality (AR) environment, the first set of indications comprising two or more user indications;
+ display an object in a docked position of an environment;
+ based on at least the first set of indications indicating a first summoning request by a user, summon a first control object;
+ display the first control object in a first position proximate to the user in the AR environment;
+ dock the first control object to a persistence object within the AR environment;
+ detect at least a first indication of a user and a second indication of the user;
+ perform a second iteration of the multi-factor intention determination, the second iteration of the multi-factor intention determination including summoning the first control object, from a docked position on the persistence object, using a second set of indications in the AR environment, the second set of indications comprising two or more user indications [~first indication and second indication];
+ based on the detection of at least the first indication and the second indication, move the object from the docked position of the environment to an undocked position in the environment;
+ based on at least the second set of indications indicating a second summoning request by the user, display the first control object in a second position proximate to the user in the AR environment [~undocked position];
+ start a timer in response to detecting a loss of the first indication; and
+ continue displaying the first control object while at least one indication of the first set of indications remains;
+ detect a loss of at least one user indication of the first set of indications; based on at least detecting the loss of the at least one user indication,
+ start a timer;
+ continue displaying the object in the undocked position at least until expiration of the timer
+ continue displaying the first control object while the timer has not yet reached an expiration value; and
+ based on at least the timer reaching the expiration value and not detecting an indication of an intention to use the first control object, cease displaying the first control object
Claims 2-5
Claim 1
Claim 6
Claim 3
Claim 7
Claim 1
Claim 8
Claim 5
Claim 9
Claim 5
Claims 10-14
Claim 2
Claim 15
Claim 1
Claims 16-18
Claim 9
Claim 19
Claim 10
Claim 20
Claim 17
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims as listed on the above table of the ‘159 patent contain every element of claims 1-20, respectively of the instant application.
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 1-20 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).
As to claim 1, Ravasz teaches:
A system (see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0022) comprising:
a processor (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0049-0051); and
a computer-readable medium storing programming instructions that, upon execution by the processor (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0050-0051), cause the processor to:
display 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]);
detect at least a first indication of a user and a second indication of the user (see Fig. 7C and ¶ 0084; the user has moved their hand [~second indication of the user] while maintaining the menu activation gesture [~first indication of a user]);
based on the detection of at least the first indication and the second indication, move 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:
start a timer in response to detecting a loss of the first indication; and
continue displaying the object in the undocked position at least until expiration of the timer.
However, Anderson is relied upon for teaching the deficient limitations:
start a timer in response to detecting a loss of the first indication (see Fig. 10D and Co. 22, lines 32-41; open hand pose 1008 [~loss of the first indication of a first pose], the user may need to hold open hand pose 1008 for a predetermined amount of time [~start a timer]); and
continue displaying 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).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ravasz and Anderson further teach: wherein a combination of at least the first indication and the second indication is associated with an intention to use or otherwise move the object to the docked position in the environment (Ravasz: see Fig. 7C-7D and ¶ 0084; the user activate the menu with an intention to use it).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ravasz and Anderson further teach: return the object from the undocked position in the environment to the docked position in the environment 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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson further teach: detect, 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 in the environment; and based on detection of the gesture from the user, continue to display the object in the docked position of the environment (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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson further teach: wherein the gesture indicating the intention by the user to use or maintain the object uses a same hand as the first indication (Anderson: see Fig. 10A-10D). Thus, combining Ravasz and Anderson 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 and Anderson further teach: wherein the gesture indicating the intention by the user to use or maintain the object includes a return of the first indication (Anderson: see Fig. 10A-10D and Co. 22, lines 32-57). Thus, combining Ravasz and Anderson 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 and Anderson further teach: wherein the gesture indicating the intention by the user to use or maintain the object uses a different hand than the first indication (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 and Anderson further teach: wherein the gesture indicating the intention by the user to use the object is detected concurrently with the second indication (Ravasz: see Fig. 7C and ¶ 0084; the user has moved their hand [~second indication of the user] while maintaining the menu activation gesture [~first indication of a user]).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Ravasz and Anderson further teach: wherein the first indication includes a hand position or motion and the second indication includes a gaze (Ravasz: see ¶ 0027, 0055, 0062).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Ravasz and Anderson further teach: wherein the hand position or motion includes a finger position or motion (Ravasz: see Fig. 7A and ¶ 0026, 0067).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ravasz and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson further teach: wherein the environment is an augmented reality (AR) environment (Ravasz: see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0024, 0076).
As to claims 16-19, claims 16-19 are directed to a method for implementing the features similar to claims 1-4, respectively, therefore, are rejected under similar rationale (Ravasz: see ¶ 0065-0066).
As to claim 20, claim 20 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights