The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 03/18/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Representative claims 1, 17, and 20 are directed to a process that tracks motion state of a physical object, determines proximity and performs a system function (STEP 1).
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE (2A1)
The underlying concept likely recites an abstract idea (see: Electric Power Group, detecting information such as motion and distance, analyzing it, and performing an action accordingly).
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO (2A2) - Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
The claim does not do more than just apply abstract logic on generic components.
“host” is generic
“tracking device” is generic
No technological improvement described
Purely functional result-based language
The claim appears to apply rule-based logic using conventional tracking hardware. It does not specify how tracking is technologically improved.
Examiner Finding: The abstract idea is NOT integrated into a practical application. It is simply implemented on generic hardware.
STEP 2B — Inventive Concept Analysis
Does the claim include additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
The additional elements:
host
tracking device
visual content
distance threshold
An examiner determines:
Tracking motion using a tracking device = well-understood
Determining distance threshold = routine
Triggering a function = conventional
Conclusion: No inventive concept. The claim amounts to applying abstract logic using conventional components.
All the dependent claims 2-16, 18-29 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements merely recite well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components performing their ordinary function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niranjani et al. (US 2017/0160914; Hereinafer Niranjani).
Re claims 1, 17, and 20, Niranjani teaches a method for activating a system function, applied to a host, comprising:
providing, by the host, a visual content (fig. 5B, displaying content on a device);
tracking, by the host, a first motion state of a physical object by using a tracking device (figs. 7A-B and [0074], determining the object hovering at different distances such as first distance d1 and d2); and
in response to determining that the first motion state of the physical object indicates that a distance between the physical object and the host is less than a first distance threshold and the physical object corresponds to a first content region in the visual content, performing, by the host, a first system function corresponding to the first content region, wherein the first content region corresponds to a first physical region on a body of the host (figs. 7A-B and [0074], an object 302 detected at a first distance, d1, from the front surface 300 may be translated to a first magnification level for the content within the magnified window 142 so that the content within the magnified window 142 may be rendered at the first magnification level, and in response to determining that the object 302 has moved farther away from the front surface 300 in the z-direction to a second distance, d2, the magnification level of the content within the magnified window 142 may be adjusted (e.g., decreased). Detecting the object's distance from the front surface 300 may be performed by the proximity sensor(s) 128 based on received signal strength, time-of-flight (ToF), or other means for determining distance of the object 302 from the front surface 300 of the display 132…. Clearly, motion of a finger is being tracked and based on the distance from the finger to the device, associated content is displayed accordingly).
Re claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches wherein the first physical region is disposed with a first physical component (fig. 7A and [0044], buttons for content).
Re claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches wherein the first motion state of the physical object comprises at least the distance between the physical object and the host (figs. 7A-B, distance between the finger and the device).
Re claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches further comprising:
determining an object position of the physical object in the visual content (figs. 7A-B, tracking the distance between the finger and the content on the device);
in response to determining that the object position of the physical object is within the distant from the first content region by less than a distance threshold, determining that the physical object corresponds to the first content region (figs. 5 and 7, tracking the speed and distance to display the content accordingly); and
in response to determining that the object position of the physical object is not within the first content region and not distant from the first content region by less than the distance threshold, determining that the physical object does not correspond to the first content region (figs. 5 and 7, displaying content based on the meeting the predetermined distance. That means if it does not satisfy the distance d1 or d2, the content won’t be displayed in a magnified window).
Re claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches wherein the first content region comprises a first icon corresponding to the first system function (fig. 11 and [0080], hovering finger over the menu to make a selection).
Re claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches wherein the first icon is invisible by default, and the method further comprises:
in response to determining that the physical object corresponds to a first content region in the visual content, showing the first icon (fig. 11 and [0080], displaying menu with option for the finger to make a selection and associated content will be displayed accordingly).
Re claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches wherein the first content region belongs to a plurality of content regions in the visual content, each of the plurality of content regions comprises a corresponding icon, the corresponding icon of each of the plurality of content regions is invisible by default, and the method further comprises:
in response to determining that the physical object is detected or the physical object corresponds to a specific gesture, showing the corresponding icon of each of the plurality of content regions (fig. 11 and [0080], displaying menu with option for the finger to make a selection and associated content will be displayed accordingly).
Re claims 12 and 19, Niranjani teaches further comprising:
in response to determining that the first motion state of the physical object indicates that the distance between the physical object and the host is not less than the first distance threshold and less than a second distance threshold and the physical object corresponds to the first content region in the visual content, performing, by the host, a second system function corresponding to the first content region, wherein the second distance threshold is higher than the first distance threshold (figs. 7a-b and [0074], tracking distance threshold between the finger and device to determine displayed content).
Re claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches wherein the visual content comprises a reference point, and a first relative position between the reference point and the first content region corresponds to a second relative position between a user and the first physical region on the body of the host (figs. 8A-B and [0075], displayed content in predetermined region along with the position of the finger making reference to the specific content).
Re claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches wherein the first system function comprises at least showing a menu (fig. 11 and [0080]-[0082], numeral 1100 menu displaying options).
Re claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Niranjani teaches wherein the first physical region comprises a port connectable with an external device ([0053] output device), and the first system function comprises activating a function of the external device ([0056], the hover interaction capability of the computing device 102 may be turned “on” or “off” via user settings or a similar user configuration of the device 102).
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niranjani in view of Yamada et al. (US 2021/0026464; Hereinafter Yamada).
Re claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Niranjani does not teach wherein no electrical signal is generated when the first physical component is triggered. However, it is taught by Yamada ([0134], when user presses a dummy button on a passive stylus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Yamada’s content into Niranjani’s invention because it would allow user to fully use the enhanced provided feature of tracking a motion instead of physical touch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the additional limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-272-4124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178