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 § 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.
Claim(s) 291, 292, 294, 296-297, 299, 303-306, 308 and 311-338 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisman et al. (US 2024/0061513) in view of Shin et al. (US 2016/0048215).
In regard to claims 291 and 314, Reisman et al. teach a computer system configured to communicate with one or more input devices (fig. 15B), comprising: one or more processors (element 6049); and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (element 6050), the one or more programs including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first air gesture that corresponds to movement of one or more fingers of a hand (fig. 2A pinch ring finger to send); and in response to detecting the first air gesture that corresponds to movement of one or more fingers of the hand: in accordance with a determination that a wrist gesture that corresponds to wrist movement of a wrist that extends from the hand is not detected within a threshold period of time after the first air gesture, that corresponds to movement of one or more fingers of the hand, is detected (paragraph 60, the priming gesture (pinch) triggers a timer during which the control gesture (wrist turn) must occur); and in accordance with a determination that the wrist gesture that corresponds to wrist movement of the wrist that extends from the hand is detected within the threshold period of time after the first air gesture, that corresponds to movement of one or more fingers of the hand, is detected (fig. 2B, rotating wrist) but does not teach canceling performance of the respective operation in response to the wrist gesture and performing a respective operation associated with the first air gesture in response to the gesture not being detected (Reisman et al. teach a second gesture to confirm the operation).
Shin et al. teach canceling performance of the respective operation in response to the gesture and performing a respective operation associated with the first air gesture in response to the gesture not being detected (figs. 12, 13, paragraphs 99, 100 and 103-105. Shin et al. teach when the default (first) condition is to cancel the user has to do nothing during the delay time to cancel the incoming call. In this condition the user must make a gesture on the confirm icon to connect the call. Fig. 13 shows the default condition is to cancel the phone call. If no gesture is detected the phone call will be cancelled; however, Shin et al. show the user can either perform no gesture of perform the gesture of clicking the cancel button and the call will be cancelled).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of gesture controls.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the cancel and confirm commands of Reisman et al. with the cancel and confirm commands of Shin et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to substitute the cancel and confirm commands of Reisman et al. with the cancel and confirm commands of Shin et al. because using gesture to cancel and confirm, as shown in Shin et al., would work the same in the apparatus of Reisman et al. as it does in the apparatus of Shin et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a gesture to cancel as shown in Shin et al. would provide predictable results and could be chosen based on user preferences and convenience.
In regard to claims 292, 315 and 327, Reisman et al. teach wherein detecting the first air gesture comprises detecting movement of one or more fingers of a person (fig. 2A pinch).
In regard to claims 294, 316 and 328, Reisman et al. teach a double pinch air gesture (fig. 4C and paragraph 69).
In regard to claims 296, 317 and 329, Reisman et al. teach wherein the wrist gesture includes movement of a wrist of a user in a downward direction (paragraph 131, Reisman et al. teach the vertical translation of a wrist being used as a gesture).
In regard to claims 297, 318 and 330, Reisman et al. teach the computer system is worn on a first wrist of a user (element 120. Paragraph 221 of Reisman et al. also show the watch can operate as a touch screen).
Shin et al. teach the wrist gesture includes movement of a hand of the user over the computer system (fig. 13, clicking the confirm or cancel button).
In regard to claims 299, 319 and 331, Reisman et al. teach wherein: detecting the first air gesture comprises detecting that the first air gesture is performed using the first hand of the user while the computer system is worn on the first wrist of the user (fig. 1B and paragraph 52); and the determination that that the wrist gesture is detected comprises a determination that the wrist gesture is performed using the first wrist of the user while the computer system is worn on the first wrist of the user (fig. 1C and paragraph 53, rotating the wrist).
In regard to claims 303, 320 and 332, Reisman et al. teach in response to detecting the first air gesture, outputting first non-visual feedback (paragraph 64).
In regard to claims 304, 321 and 333, Reisman et al. teach in accordance with the determination that the wrist gesture is not detected within the threshold period of time after the first air gesture is detected, outputting second non-visual feedback (paragraph 75).
In regard to claims 305, 322 and 334, Reisman et al. teach in accordance with the determination that the wrist gesture is detected within the threshold period of time after the first air gesture is detected, forgoing outputting the second non-visual feedback (paragraph 75, Reisman et al. teach feedback for not receiving the gesture. Since the second non-visual feedback is for not receiving the second gesture it cannot also be for receiving the gesture).
In regard to claims 306, 323 and 335, Reisman et al. teach in accordance with the determination that the wrist gesture is detected within the threshold period of time after the first air gesture is detected, outputting third non-visual feedback (paragraph 74 and 75. In a gesture with three or more stages, haptic feedback is provided when a control gesture stage is detected).
In regard to claims 308, 324 and 336, Reisman et al. teach in response to detecting the first air gesture: displaying, via one or more display generation components, first visual feedback (fig. 2B, rotate wrist to confirm).
Shin et al. teach in accordance with a determination that the gesture is not detected within the threshold period of time after the first air gesture is detected, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, second visual feedback different from the first visual feedback (paragraph 97, notify user delay time has elapsed).
In regard to claims 311, 325 and 337, Shin et al. teach in accordance with a determination that a first set of computer system context criteria is met, the respective operation is a first operation (fig. 10 and paragraph 40, context criteria is an incoming call); and in accordance with a determination that a second set of computer system context criteria is met, the respective operation is a second operation different from the first operation (paragraph 39, camera application).
In regard to claims 312, 326 and 338, Reisman et al. teach a wrist-worn device (element 120).
In regard to claim 313, Reisman et al. and Shin et al. teach all the elements of claim 313 (see claim 291 above) including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with one or more input devices (Reisman et al. paragraph 24).
In regard to claims 339, 342 and 345, Reisman et al. teach wherein: the computer system is configured to communicate with one or more display generation components the first air gesture is detected while displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first user interface (fig. 2A element 208) that includes a first affordance that corresponds to the respective operation (element 210. Applicant’s specification defines an affordance as, in paragraph 208, a user-interactive graphical user interface object that is, optionally, displayed on the display screen of devices. Reisman et al. shows the affordance as being a messaging application).
Shin et al. teach the one or more programs further include instructions for: in response to detecting the first air gesture that corresponds to movement of one or more fingers of the hand, visually emphasizing the first affordance (figs. 11-13, Shin et al. teach emphasizing the confirm or cancel button after detection of the first air gesture).
Claim(s) 340, 343 and 346 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisman et al. in view of Shin et al. further considered with Robaina et al. (US 2019/0011703).
In regard to claims 340, 343 and 346, Reisman et al. and Shin et al. teach all the elements of these claims except wherein visually emphasizing the first affordance includes visually de-emphasizing at least a portion of the first user interface (Shin et al. teach emphasizing the cancel or confirm button but does not teach deemphasizing the rest of the display).
Robaina et al. teach wherein visually emphasizing the first affordance includes visually de-emphasizing at least a portion of the first user interface (paragraph 1698. “The display device can thus identify the object that the user is focusing on an can enhance that object as rendered on the display and/or de-emphasize others…”).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of user interfaces.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Reisman et al. and Shin et al. with the de-emphasized objects of Robaina et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Reisman et al. and Shin et al. with the de-emphasized objects of Robaina et al. because the de-emphasis of objects would aid the user in discernment of objects on the display.
Claim(s) 341, 344 and 347 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisman et al. in view of Shin et al. further considered with Yun (US 2016/0004408).
In regard to claims 341, 344 and 347, Reisman et al. and Shin et al. teach in accordance with the determination that the wrist gesture is detected within the threshold period of time after the first air gesture is detected (Reisman et al. paragraph 20 teaches receiving the second stage of the gesture within a predetermined period of time), but does not teach entering a low power mode.
Yun teaches using a gesture to enter a low power mode (fig. 10 and paragraph 84).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of user interfaces.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Reisman et al. and Shin et al. with the power saving mode of Yun. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Reisman et al. and Shin et al. with the power saving mode of Yun because the power saving mode of Yun would allow the user to maintain battery life through the use of a convenient gesture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 15 and 16 the second gesture of Reisman et al. is used only for confirmation of the intended operation and the cancellation gesture of Shin et al. would render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose. The intended purpose of Reisman et al. is to ensure low false positive rates by having a multi-staged gesture (Reisman et al. paragraph 6). Shin et al. show determining the reliability of a first gesture and requiring a second gesture if the first gesture reliability is below a threshold. Figure 12 of Shin et al. show the second gesture can be used to cancel the operation. Shin et al. also show the opposite where the gesture can be used to confirm the operation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Shin et al. clearly shows, at the time of invention, using a secondary cancellation gesture was known in the art. This secondary cancellation gesture was used to ensure the proper operation was taking place. This is the same purpose as the secondary gesture of Reisman et al.
Applicant continues to argue on pages 16 and 17 that the combination would allow inadvertent operations such as capturing a photo. Figure 13 of Shin et al. shows the default state being a cancellation state. This is the same as Reisman et al. which shows an operation will be cancelled without a secondary gestures. Shin et al. also show in Figure 13 that the user can perform a gesture to cancel the operation. This embodiment of Shin et al. would ensure there were no inadvertent operations.
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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623