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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/20/2026 has been entered. Claim 21 is cancelled. Claim 22 has been added. Claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Applicant submits that a POSITA would understand, given at least paragraphs [0042]- [0043], that higher means higher than the lower importance rather than some other level of importance as the goal is to detect local peaks and valleys in the signal.
The examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. The MPEP states that it is improper to import claim limitations from the Specification at MPEP 2111.01:
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV, below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In this case, limiting the meaning of “higher importance” or “lower importance” based on usage in the Specification is inappropriate. MPEP at 2111 recites:
Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.
Applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to clarify what “higher” or “lower” is measured with respect to during prosecution. Doing so will reduce the possibility that the claim will be inappropriately construed once issued. Accordingly, the rejection under 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant further argues that:
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits the motivation given in the Office Action to modify Berenzweig by adding an optical/PPG sensor of Kim is faulty and would not apply to adding a PPG sensor. Specifically, the Office Action states on page 7 "Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wrist-wearable device of Berenzweig to an optical sensor based on the teachings of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve gesture and error detection and classification accuracy through additional sensor combinations, and to reduce consumption of computing resources at other devices, thereby reducing processing requirements at those devices."
Applicant submits this motivation is overly broad and general and would not explain why someone skilled in the art would specifically select a PPG sensor (rather than some other type of sensor) to add to the gesture detection method of Berenzweig. Further, the motivation does not explain why there would be a reasonable expectation of success in improving the classifier of Berenzweig by using PPG data given the neuromuscular approach and method of Berenzweig.
Moreover, the motivation appears conclusory without articulated reasoning. Per MPEP 2142, the Federal Circuit has stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Further, as has been regularly clarified, a determination of obviousness requires more than the fact that reference(s) could be combined or modified. The issue is not whether reference(s) could be combined or modified, but whether they would be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art. In other words, in this instance, obviousness requires that the skilled artisan would have modified Berenzweig as proposedLaine IP O
by the Office Action to arrive at the claimed invention. See Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cit. 2017).
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. The idea that the motivation may also apply to some other combination does not prevent the motivation from applying to this combination. Berenzweig also is not limited to a “neuromuscular approach”. See at least Berenzweig ¶0032 and ¶0121 for a discussion of auxiliary sensors, including cameras. Berenzweig even suggests that these auxiliary sensors “augment and enhance the neuromuscular signals” (Berenzweig, ¶0157).
Applicant further argues that:
Additionally, to the extent that the Examiner would rely on modifying Berenzweig by replacing the EMG sensors with at least one PPG sensor. Applicant respectfully submits there would also be no motivation to do so at least because replacing the sensors would change the principle of operation of Berenzweig given the major differences between the operation of EMG and PPG sensors.
As discussed above, not only does adding a sensor not require replacing a sensor, Berenzweig suggests that auxiliary sensors are beneficial. The principle operation of Berenzweig expressly incorporates additional auxiliary sensors.
Applicant further argues that:
However, of the mentioned paragraphs of Berenzweig, only paragraph [0112] discusses any feedback coming from the XR system to the user.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the apparatus is configured to receive, from an XR application”. Claim 22 does not appear to recite feedback coming from the XR system to the user as argued above. Regardless, Berenzweig recites that the apparatus receives the estimate (Berenzweig, ¶0166-¶0168, ¶0177-¶0178), and that feedback is communicated to the user (Berenzweig, at least ¶0055-¶0056).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “the optical sensor value has a higher importance at the beginning and end of a gesture time window and a lower importance otherwise”. It is unclear what is meant by “higher importance”, which would appear to be a matter of opinion and upon with reasonable persons of ordinary skill in the art can differ. Applicant’s Specification discusses importance at ¶0043, but only in so far as to link it to an optical sensor “value”. It is not clear from this statement what is implied by importance, or how a value aligns with the importance. Further, it is unclear what the claimed importance is measured relative to. The claim recites “higher” and “lower” but it is not clear whether it is higher than some other level of importance or if the claim is intended to recite that the higher importance is simply higher than the lower importance. These ambiguities render the scope of the claim indefinite.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Berenzweig et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0097082), referred to as Berenzweig herein [previously cited].
Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0368474), referred to as Kim herein [previously cited].
Forutanpour et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0091790), referred to as Forutanpour herein [previously cited].
Yokokawa (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0391662), referred to as Yokokawa herein [previously cited].
Xiong (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0198031), referred to as Xiong herein [previously cited].
Ding et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0205521), referred to as Ding herein [previously cited].
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Kim in further view of Ding.
Regarding claim 1, Berenzweig discloses a wrist-wearable apparatus
receive data streams from at least one
provide the received data streams to a gesture classifier, and determine, using the gesture classifier, gesture state by detecting and classifying gesture transitions based on transients within the sensor data of the received data streams, the gesture classifier comprising a neural network classifier trained to detect said gesture transitions (Berenzweig, ¶0140-¶0144 – providing sensor signals to a trained neural network classifier to identify handstate, movements, and gestures. ¶0119, ¶0135 – accumulating estimations of individual motor unit firing or combinations of motor units to determine a pattern comprising a gesture. Time-varying movement signals)
and
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a wrist-wearable motion recognition device for detecting input movements (Kim, Abstract with Fig. 1 with ¶0057),
wrist-wearable apparatus comprising a processing core (Kim, Fig. 12 with ¶0061, ¶0109-¶0112, ¶0118 – wrist-wearable motion recognizing device includes processor. ¶0123 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory), and
receive data streams from at least one photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor (Kim, Fig. 12 with ¶0109-¶0110 – photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wrist-wearable device of Berenzweig to include a processor and receive data from a PPG sensor based on the teachings of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve gesture and error detection and classification accuracy through additional sensor combinations, and to reduce consumption of computing resources at other devices, thereby reducing processing requirements at those devices.
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose and wherein an adaptive time window is used as part of the detecting, wherein a typical gesture duration is determined based on training data, where the adaptive time window is based on said typical gesture duration. However, in the same field of endeavor Ding discloses identification of gestures, including non-contact gestures (Ding, Abstract), including
and wherein an adaptive time window is used as part of the detecting, wherein a typical gesture duration is determined based on training data, where the adaptive time window is based on said typical gesture duration (Ding, ¶0034, ¶0062, ¶0065, ¶0080, ¶0083 – gesture duration is learned from training data obtained from user input. A gesture habit (typical) is calculated from the observed gesture inputs and used to calculate the period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the gesture detection of Berenzweig to include adapting based on learning from typical user gesture times based on the teachings of Ding. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable active adaptation to the operation habit of the user, improving gesture recognition accuracy and computational effort.
Regarding claim 3, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to infer pinch state from the received data streams based on the determined gesture state (Berenzweig, ¶0111, ¶0118, ¶0156-¶0157 – pinch gesture).
Regarding claim 4, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further wherein the apparatus is further configured so that the interaction and/or state interpreter is configured to provide the determined gesture state, to an extended reality, XR, application (Berenzweig, ¶0032-¶0033, ¶0111-¶0114 – gestures provided to XR system).
Regarding claim 5, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to receive, from a XR application, at least one of: an intent estimate or an affordance profile (Berenzweig, ¶0111-¶0112, ¶0187 – two-handed, one-handed, writing, typing, drawing modes. In this case, the modes are both an intent and an affordance profile for the interface).
Regarding claim 7, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to receive, from the XR application, contextual information and wherein the apparatus is configured to use the received contextual information to adjust statefulness detection (Berenzweig, ¶0140-¶0144 – providing sensor signals to identify handstate, movements, and gestures. ¶0166-¶0167 – input mode detection based on user patterns. ¶0171-¶0172, ¶0174-¶0176 – mode is used to determine recognized gestures).
Regarding claim 8, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to receive gaze tracking information, wherein the apparatus is configured to use the received gaze tracking information to adjust statefulness detection (Berenzweig, ¶0121 – sensors include eye trackers. ¶0167-¶0168 – sensor signals are used to trigger mode switching).
Regarding claim 10, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to use a recurrent model to capture gesture history and improve statefulness detection (Berenzweig, ¶0134-¶0135 – recurrent neural network trained on training data. ¶0128, ¶0140-¶0142 – training/retraining is performed on received gesture signals).
Regarding claim 12, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to transform discrete temporal events, such as taps and releases, into a state, in order to detect transitions, (Berenzweig, ¶0140-¶0144 – providing sensor signals to a trained neural network classifier to identify handstate, movements, and gestures. ¶0119, ¶0135 – accumulating estimations of individual motor unit firing or combinations of motor units to determine a pattern comprising a gesture. Time-varying movement signals. ¶0111, ¶0118, ¶0156 – pinch and tap gestures between various and/or combinations of fingers. ¶0113 – ceasing tapping gesture. ¶0122, ¶0152 – open hand configuration).
Regarding claim 13, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises the IMU and the optical sensor (Berenzweig, ¶0122 – wrist-wearable IMU, EMG device. Kim, Fig. 12 with ¶0109-¶0110 – photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor. Applicant’s Specification at ¶0026-¶0027 describes a PPG sensor as an example of the optical sensor).
Regarding claim 14, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to perform preprocessing of the data streams, the gesture classification and the state interpretation (Berenzweig, ¶0119, ¶0135 – accumulating estimations of individual motor unit firing or combinations of motor units to determine a pattern comprising a gesture. Time-varying movement signals. Kim, Fig. 12 with ¶0061, ¶0109-¶0112 – wrist-wearable motion recognizing device includes processor).
Regarding claim 15, Berenzweig discloses a method for identifying a selection gesture from obtained data, the method comprising (Berenzweig, ¶0140-¶0144 – providing sensor signals to a trained neural network classifier to identify handstate, movements, and gestures. ¶0152 – gestures mapped to interactions and commands):
receiving data streams from at least one
providing the received data streams to a gesture classifier, and determining, using the gesture classifier, gesture state by detecting and classifying gesture transitions based on transients within the sensor data of the received data streams, the gesture classifier comprising a neural network classifier trained to detect said gesture transitions (Berenzweig, ¶0140-¶0144 – providing sensor signals to a trained neural network classifier to identify handstate, movements, and gestures. ¶0119, ¶0135 – accumulating estimations of individual motor unit firing or combinations of motor units to determine a pattern comprising a gesture. Time-varying movement signals)
and comprising a gesture. Time-varying movement signals. ¶0128 – retraining inference models based on previous inputs).
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a wrist-wearable motion recognition device for detecting input movements (Kim, Abstract with Fig. 1 with ¶0057),
receive data streams from at least one photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor (Kim, Fig. 12 with ¶0109-¶0110 – photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wrist-wearable device of Berenzweig to receive data from a PPG sensor based on the teachings of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve gesture and error detection and classification accuracy through additional sensor combinations.
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose and wherein an adaptive time window is used as part of the detecting, wherein a typical gesture duration is determined based on training data, where the adaptive time window is based on said typical gesture duration. However, in the same field of endeavor Ding discloses identification of gestures, including non-contact gesetures (Ding, Abstract), including
and wherein an adaptive time window is used as part of the detecting, wherein a typical gesture duration is determined based on training data, where the adaptive time window is based on said typical gesture duration (Ding, ¶0034, ¶0062, ¶0065, ¶0080, ¶0083 – gesture duration is learned from training data obtained from user input. A gesture habit (typical) is calculated from the observed gesture inputs and used to calculate the period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the gesture detection of Berenzweig to include adapting based on learning from typical user gesture times based on the teachings of Ding. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable active adaptation to the operation habit of the user, improving gesture recognition accuracy and computational effort.
Regarding claim 17, Berenzweig discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the method further comprises detecting transitions between pinched and unpinched states (Berenzweig, ¶0119, ¶0135 – accumulating estimations of individual motor unit firing or combinations of motor units to determine a pattern comprising a gesture. Time-varying movement signals. ¶0111, ¶0118, ¶0156 – pinch gesture. ¶0152 – open hand configuration).
Regarding claim 18, Berenzweig discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the method further comprises performing at least one of: preprocessing of the data stream; gesture classifying; transition detection; by an apparatus comprising: a processing core, at least one memory including computer program code and the at least one PPG sensor and the at least one IMU (Berenzweig, ¶0119, ¶0135 – accumulating estimations of individual motor unit firing or combinations of motor units to determine a pattern comprising a gesture. Time-varying movement signals. Fig. 1 with ¶0128 – system includes sensors and processor. ¶0122 – wrist-wearable IMU, EMG device. ¶0188-¶0189 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory Kim, Fig. 12 with ¶0061-¶0062, ¶0095, ¶0109-¶0112, ¶0123 – wrist-wearable motion recognizing device includes processor, sensors, and memory storing instructions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wrist-wearable device of Berenzweig to include the processor and memory based on the teachings of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve gesture and error detection and classification accuracy through additional sensor combinations, and to reduce consumption of computing resources at other devices, thereby reducing processing requirements at those devices.
Regarding claim 19, Berenzweig discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the method further comprises receiving, from an XR application, contextual information, and using the received contextual information to adjust statefulness detection (Berenzweig, ¶0140-¶0144 – providing sensor signals to identify handstate, movements, and gestures. ¶0166-¶0167 – input mode detection based on user patterns. ¶0171-¶0172, ¶0174-¶0176 – mode is used to determine recognized gestures).
Regarding claim 20, Berenzweig discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a set of computer readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause an apparatus to at least (Berenzweig, Fig. 1 with ¶0128 – system includes sensors and processor. ¶0122 – wrist-wearable IMU, EMG device. ¶0188-¶0189 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
receive data streams from at least one
provide the received data streams to a gesture classifier, and determine, using the gesture classifier, gesture state by detecting and classifying gesture transitions based on transients within the sensor data of the received data streams, the gesture classifier comprising a neural network classifier trained to detect said gesture transitions (Berenzweig, ¶0140-¶0144 – providing sensor signals to a trained neural network classifier to identify handstate, movements, and gestures. ¶0119, ¶0135 – accumulating estimations of individual motor unit firing or combinations of motor units to determine a pattern comprising a gesture. Time-varying movement signals)
and
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a wrist-wearable motion recognition device for detecting input movements (Kim, Abstract with Fig. 1 with ¶0057),
receive data streams from at least one photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor (Kim, Fig. 12 with ¶0109-¶0110 – photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wrist-wearable device of Berenzweig to receive data from a PPG sensor based on the teachings of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve gesture and error detection and classification accuracy through additional sensor combinations.
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose and wherein an adaptive time window is used as part of the detecting, wherein a typical gesture duration is determined based on training data, where the adaptive time window is based on said typical gesture duration. However, in the same field of endeavor Ding discloses identification of gestures, including non-contact gesetures (Ding, Abstract), including
and wherein an adaptive time window is used as part of the detecting, wherein a typical gesture duration is determined based on training data, where the adaptive time window is based on said typical gesture duration (Ding, ¶0034, ¶0062, ¶0065, ¶0080, ¶0083 – gesture duration is learned from training data obtained from user input. A gesture habit (typical) is calculated from the observed gesture inputs and used to calculate the period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the gesture detection of Berenzweig to include adapting based on learning from typical user gesture times based on the teachings of Ding. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable active adaptation to the operation habit of the user, improving gesture recognition accuracy and computational effort.
Regarding claim 22, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to receive, from an XR application, at least one of: an intent estimate or an affordance profile; and adjust, based on the intent estimate or affordance profile, at least one threshold level for determining a gesture state and/or transition (Berenzweig, ¶0111-¶0113, ¶0187 – two-handed, one-handed, writing, typing, drawing modes. In this case, the modes are both an intent and an affordance profile for the interface. Mode is determined by the XR system. ¶0166-¶0168, ¶0177-¶0178 – mode is communicated within the XR system. Ding, ¶0062, ¶0065, ¶0080, ¶0083 – gesture duration is learned from training data obtained from user input. A gesture habit for a user is calculated from the observed gesture inputs and used to calculate the period of time and detection thresholds. ¶0035-¶0036, ¶0055 – the user can adjust the change rule manually through communicated user input or it can be learned. The adjusted change rule is stored and used to process incoming signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the gesture detection of Berenzweig to include adapting recognition thresholds based on a specific user gesture based on the teachings of Ding. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce incorrect gesture determination (Ding, ¶0043), and to improve gesture recognition accuracy and computational effort.
Claim(s) 2, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Kim in further view of Ding in further view of Forutanpour.
Regarding claim 2, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to provide the determined gesture state to an interaction and/or state interpreter configured to apply corrections
However, Berenzweig as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor Forutanpour discloses multi-sensor gesture recognition (Forutanpour, Abstract), including
apply corrections based on application state and/or context (Forutanpour, ¶0037 – classifier retraining for improved gesture detection based on secondary gesture classification. ¶0038 – rejection of sensor signals based on user state/context of walking. ¶0027-¶0028, ¶0032 – incorporation/deactivation of secondary sensor signals (corrected sensor input) in reliable/unreliable contexts. Fig. 4 with ¶0054 – gesture error detection (gesture detection correction to an error state) and reporting in circumstances where sensors disagree and the environment provides for a reliable second sensor. ¶0022 – confidence table is corrected based on detected errors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wrist-worn apparatus of Berenzweig as modified to include corrections based on secondary sensors in certain states/contexts based on the teachings of Forutanpour. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve gesture and error detection and classification accuracy in certain environments (Forutanpour, ¶0005).
Regarding claim 16, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the determined gesture state is provided to an interaction and/or state interpreter configured to apply corrections
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor Forutanpour discloses multi-sensor gesture recognition (Forutanpour, Abstract), including
apply corrections based on application state and/or context (Forutanpour, ¶0037 – classifier retraining for improved gesture detection based on secondary gesture classification. ¶0038 – rejection of sensor signals based on user state/context of walking. ¶0027-¶0028, ¶0032 – incorporation/deactivation of secondary sensor signals (corrected sensor input) in reliable/unreliable contexts. Fig. 4 with ¶0054 – gesture error detection (gesture detection correction to an error state) and reporting in circumstances where sensors disagree and the environment provides for a reliable second sensor. ¶0022 – confidence table is corrected based on detected errors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wrist-worn apparatus of Berenzweig to include corrections based on secondary sensors in certain states/contexts based on the teachings of Forutanpour. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve gesture and error detection and classification accuracy in certain environments (Forutanpour, ¶0005).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Kim in further view of Ding in further view of Yokokawa.
Regarding claim 9, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to apply
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yokokawa disclose gaze detection of hand gestures (Yokokawa, Abstract), including
wherein the apparatus is further configured to apply dead reckoning corrections and context cues to improve statefulness detection (Yokokawa, ¶0053 – tracking hand motion via dead reckoning position algorithm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the motion tracking of Berenzweig as modified to include dead-reckoning based on the teachings of Yokokawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively incorporate additional sensors (Yokokawa, ¶0053), to avoid false detection of inputs (Yokokawa, ¶0002), for improved gesture detection, especially in circumstances where optical gesture detection is compromised such as when the gesture is obscured.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Kim in further view of Ding in further view of Xiong.
Regarding claim 11, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose wherein the apparatus is further configured so that the optical sensor value has a higher importance at the beginning and end of a gesture time window and a lower importance otherwise.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xiong discloses image-based gesture detection (Xiong, Abstract, ¶0001-¶0004, ¶0054), including
wherein the apparatus is further configured so that the optical sensor value has a higher importance at the beginning and end of a gesture time window and a lower importance otherwise (Xiong, ¶0099, ¶0104-¶0106 with Table 1 – detection of the start and end frames for the gestures are characterized as necessary (high importance) for identification of the gesture. Weights for the features of the start image frame are higher than other frames for first frame identification. End frame identification is performed in the same manner. ¶0104 – the degree of importance of the feature difference is expressed by the weight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the motion tracking of Berenzweig as modified to include prioritizing identification of the beginning and ending of the gesture based on the teachings of Xiong. The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately identify the gesture, improving human-machine interaction (Xiong, ¶0013-¶0014).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References are at least relevant as indicated in the corresponding summary.
Monnin et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0021630) – user profile containing acceleration and time period thresholds for gesture detection (at least ¶0211).
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 DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights