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 6/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 9-10 have been cancelled. Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1-8 and 11-22 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:
Thus, two different types of outputs are identified for an input character: (a) a local
application on the wearable device and an operation to be performed by that application, and (b) a predicted user input for a message to a contact of the user. Both outputs are concurrently presented as selectable alternatives, and the user can choose between performing a local application operation or sending a message to a contact. The Office Action did not identify a reference that concurrently provides both of the selectable alternatives.
Instead, the Office Action relied on Hartz for presenting application-specific action representations. Office Action, pages 7-8. Hartz discloses that as a user types "ca," the system "returns matching suggestions for opening the camera, opening the calendar or sending a message to a contact named 'Caro'." See Hartz, 0036. However, None of Hartz's suggestions are a predicted user input for a message that is identified based on a character and presented for the user to review and send to another electronic device associated with the contact, as recited by claim 1 as amended. Moreover, Hartz does not identify, from the same character input, both (a) a local application on a wearable device and an operation to be performed by that application, and (b) a separate predicted user input for a message to a contact.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Fig. 4 of Hartz shows both a Calendar application (local application and an operation such as opening the application), and “Send a Message to caro” (separate predicted user input for a message to a contact) simultaneously. Hartz goes on to disclose detecting the input character may be the body of the message at ¶0047. Figs. 5 and 6 go on to show predictions for operations other than opening for the application. Alternative suggestions are not shown in these figures only because they represent a “full command match” (¶0042-¶0043).
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to claims rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “cause a display commutatively coupled”. The indentation of this clause makes it appear as though it is part of the “identify, based on a character…” list recited earlier. However, the “cause a display” limitation is not something that is identified. The Examiner suggests adjusting the indentation of this and subsequent clauses to be parallel to other independent claims to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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].
Rubin et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0064132), referred to as Rubin herein [previously cited].
Hartz (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0120309), referred to as Hartz herein [previously cited].
Kim et al. (“3D Space Handwriting Recognition with Ligature Model”, UCS 2006, LNCS 4239, pp. 41 – 56, 2006), referred to as Kim herein [previously cited].
Xin et a. (“From 2D to 3D: Facilitating Single-Finger Mid-Air Typing on QWERTY Keyboards with Probabilistic Touch Modeling”, Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, Volume 7, Issue 1 (March 2023)), referred to as Xin herein [previously cited].
Coglon et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0075506), referred to as Coglon herein.
Kotler et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0091453), referred to as Kotler herein.
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) 1-8, 11-12, 15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Hartz in further view of Coglon.
Regarding claim 1, Berenzweig discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a computing device communicatively coupled with a wrist-wearable device, cause the wrist-wearable device to perform (Berenzweig, Figs. 1 and 9A-9C with ¶0119-¶0125, ¶0149, and ¶0170-¶0173 – wrist-worn sensor system communicatively coupled with a virtual headset. ¶0189 – computer memory and processor executing stored instructions. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the head-mounted display described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0159):
detecting, by a wearable device worn by a user, a text-symbolic hand gesture performed by the user (Berenzweig, Fig. 2 with ¶0146 – AR system is a wearable device. ¶0031-¶0032, ¶0066-¶0067, ¶0165, ¶0170 – neuromuscular signals text inputs are detected by the system and displayed in the AR system. ¶0111, ¶0173 – input signals include text input including handwritten text, as well as entry via a virtual keyboard, each including detected mid-air gestures);
in response to detecting the text-symbolic hand gesture, identifying, based on a character identified from the text-symbolic hand gesture (Berenzweig, ¶0174-¶0176 – gestures for continuation/input of a word, editing a word or character, and inserting a space to indicate that characters are not linked to enable input of a new word (set of linked characters)):
a local application on the wrist-wearable device associated with the character and an operation to be performed by the local application (Berenzweig, ¶0152 – application-defined gestures including gestures mapped to commands or user-defined);
and a predicted user input for a
causing a display communicatively coupled with the wrist-wearable device to concurrently present as selectable
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hartz discloses text input prediction (Hartz, Abstract), including
present as selectable alternatives (i) a representation of the local application and the operation to provide an application-specific action associated with a character identified from the text-symbolic hand gesture (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – partial input of “ca” results in results including camera, calendar, and message applications predictions. Selection of the suggestion results in commanding the application to perform the action. For example, selecting the “calendar” application from the list would result in opening the application),
and (ii) the predicted user input to initiate sending of the message to a contact of the user based on the character (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – Selection of “Send Message to Caro” would result in executing a chat command for the contact “caro”. Fig. 3 with ¶0034 – inputting a contact, for example, triggers suggestions for sending messages to the contact);
providing instructions that cause the device to initiate sending of the message containing the predicted user input to another electronic device associated with the contact of the user (Hartz, ¶0046-¶0047 – inputting a message character may result in the suggestion for the command to send a message containing the inputted text to a contact);
and in response to a determination that the subsequent input selects the representation of the local application and the operation, providing instructions that cause the device to initiate performance of the operation by the local application (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – Selection of the suggestion results in commanding the application to perform the action).
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 predicted user input commands of Berenzweig to include providing selectable representations of the application-specific action, including messaging contacts, based on the teachings of Hartz. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend predictive functions beyond text terms to deep behaviors or tendencies of users in accessing applications and associated functions (Hartz, ¶0017-¶0018).
However, Berenzweig as modified appears not to expressly disclose an operation of sending the message to the identified contact of the user. However, in the same field of endeavor, Coglon discloses managing user messaging requests (Coglon, Abstract), including
detecting a command of sending the message to the identified contact of the user (Coglon, ¶0098 – detected user command includes sending a message to a contact specified in the command with a message specified in the same command).
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 suggested options of sending a message to a recognized contact and sending a recognized message to a contact of Berenzweig as modified to include suggesting to send the input message to the recognized input contact based on the teachings of Coglon. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable more complete recognition of the input command, and reduce the number of steps required for user input of a message request.
Regarding claim 2, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein initiating sending of the message containing the predicted user input to another electronic device associated with the contact of the user includes one or more of: causing an application on the wrist-wearable device to send the message to the other electronic device, causing a portion of a user interface presented by the wrist-wearable device to be populated with the message for review before sending, causing the message to be shared with the other electronic device associated with the contact of the user (Hartz, Fig. 4 with ¶0036, ¶0046-¶0048, ¶0054 – sending an email to a contact corresponding to the text input).
Regarding claim 3, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein initiating performance of the operation by the local application includes one or more of: causing the local application on the wrist-wearable device to open, causing a portion of a user interface of the local application to be presented on the wrist-wearable device to be populated with one or more user inputs, causing the local application on the wrist-wearable device to perform the operation, and causing the local application to initiate an interaction with a predefined contact associated with the character (Berenzweig, ¶0152 – application-defined gestures including gestures mapped to commands or user-defined. Hartz, Fig. 4-6 with ¶0036 – suggestions for opening camera, calendar, or call applications. Fig. 4 with ¶0036, ¶0046-¶0048, ¶0054 – sending an email to a contact corresponding to the text input. Fig. 6 with ¶0038 – call Avis. ¶0019 – contacts identified for voice call functionality, texting, social networking, email).
Regarding claim 4, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the text-symbolic hand gesture is a first text-symbolic hand gesture and the character is a first character, and the instructions, when executed by the computing device, cause the wrist-wearable device to perform: detecting, by the wearable device worn by the user, a second text-symbolic hand gesture performed by the user; in response to detecting the second text-symbolic hand gesture and in accordance with a determination that a second character identified from the second text-symbolic hand gesture is a linking character that connects to the first character to form a set of characters, causing the display communicatively coupled with the wrist-wearable device to present (i) a representation of an updated local application and an updated operation associated with the set of characters and (ii) an updated predicted user input for a message to a contact of the user based on the set of characters (Berenzweig , ¶0174-¶0176 – gestures for continuation/input of a word, editing a word or character, and inserting a space to indicate that characters are not linked to enable input of a new word (set of linked characters). Hartz, Fig. 4-6 with ¶0036 – updating suggestions for opening camera, calendar, or call applications as additional characters, including linked characters are input).
Regarding claim 5, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 4 above, and further discloses wherein the text-symbolic hand gesture is a first text-symbolic hand gesture and the character is a first character, and the instructions, when executed by the computing device, cause the wrist-wearable device to perform: detecting, by the wearable device worn by the user, a third text-symbolic hand gesture performed by the user; in response to detecting the third text-symbolic hand gesture and in accordance with a determination that a third character identified from the second text-symbolic hand gesture is a non-linking character that is not connected to the first character such that the first character forms a first set of characters and the third character forms a second set of characters, causing the display communicatively coupled with the wrist-wearable device to present (i) a representation of an updated local application and an updated operation associated with the first and second set of characters and (ii) an updated predicted user input for a message to a contact of the user based on the first and second set of characters (Berenzweig , ¶0174-¶0176 – gestures for continuation/input of a word, editing a word or character, and inserting a space to indicate that characters are not linked to enable input of a new word (set of linked characters). Hartz, Fig. 4-6 with ¶0036 – updating suggestions for opening camera, calendar, or call applications as additional characters, including non-linked characters are input).
Regarding claim 6, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 4 above, and further discloses when executed by the computing device, cause the wrist-wearable device to perform: detecting, by the wearable device worn by the user, another input performed by the user; in response to a determination that the other input selects one or more sets of characters, providing instructions that cause the wrist-wearable device to perform an operation associated with the one or more sets of characters (Berenzweig , ¶0174-¶0176 – gestures for editing or deleting a word or character).
Regarding claim 7, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the operation associated with the respective set of characters includes one or more of: causing an application on the wrist-wearable device to open, causing a portion of a user interface presented on the wrist-wearable device to be populated with a predetermined input, and causing the wrist-wearable device to initiate an interaction with a predefined contact associated with the character (Berenzweig, ¶0152 – application-defined gestures including gestures mapped to commands or user-defined. Hartz, Fig. 4-6 with ¶0016, ¶0036-¶0037 – suggestions for opening camera, calendar, or call applications as text is input in real time. Fig. 4 with ¶0016, ¶0036, ¶0046-¶0048, ¶0054 – sending an email to a contact corresponding to the text input and updated as text is input. Fig. 6 with ¶0038 – call Avis. ¶0019 – contacts identified for voice call functionality, texting, social networking, email as text is input).
Regarding claim 8, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the text- symbolic hand gesture is one of: a swipe typing gesture, a surface typing gesture, or a handwriting gesture (Berenzweig, ¶0155 – virtual swipe gesture on a swipe keyboard. ¶0173 – handwriting gesture text input).
Regarding claim 11, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 8 above, and further discloses wherein the handwriting gesture is user specific shorthand and the determination that the text-symbolic hand gesture is associated with the character includes interpreting the user specific shorthand based on historic user data (Hartz, Abstract, ¶0002, ¶0017, ¶0021, ¶0031 – user-specific analysis of past behavior, tendencies, and selections is used to tailor predictions for user input from partial text entries (shorthand)).
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 predicted user input commands of Berenzweig to include providing user-specific gesture results based on past behavior based on the teachings of Hartz. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the user from having to enter additional text or from doing additional searching (Hartz, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 12, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 8 above, and further discloses wherein the handwriting gesture is a learned gesture generated by the wrist-wearable device and historic user data, wherein the learned gesture is specific to the user (Berenzweig, ¶0152-¶154 – gestures may be defined by a user, and include writing actions. ¶0139-¶0140 – classifier trained on recorded sensor signals. ¶0130 – recorded sensor signals are input to the trained inference model for gesture recognition. ¶0142 – individual characteristics and tendencies for movement patterns are included in the inference model. Hartz, Abstract, ¶0002, ¶0017, ¶0021, ¶0031 – user-specific analysis of past behavior, tendencies, and selections is used to tailor predictions for user input from partial text entries).
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 predicted user input commands of Berenzweig to include providing user-specific gesture results based on past behavior based on the teachings of Hartz. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the user from having to enter additional text or from doing additional searching (Hartz, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 15, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the text-symbolic hand gesture is a visually imperceptible hand gesture (Berenzweig, ¶0152 – covert gestures imperceptible to another person).
Regarding claim 17, Berenzweig discloses a method, comprising: detecting, by a wearable device worn by a user, a text-symbolic hand gesture performed by the user (Berenzweig, Figs. 1 and 9A-9C with ¶0119-¶0125, ¶0149, and ¶0170-¶0173 – wrist-worn sensor system communicatively coupled with a virtual headset. ¶0031-¶0032, ¶0170 – neuromuscular signals are detected by the wearable device. ¶0111, ¶0173 – input signals include text input including handwritten text, as well as entry via a virtual keyboard, each including detected mid-air gestures);
in response to detecting the text-symbolic hand gesture, identifying, based on a character identified from the text-symbolic hand gesture (Berenzweig, ¶0174-¶0176 – gestures for continuation/input of a word, editing a word or character, and inserting a space to indicate that characters are not linked to enable input of a new word (set of linked characters)):
a local application on the wearable device associated with the character and an operation to be performed by the local application (Berenzweig, ¶0152 – application-defined gestures including gestures mapped to commands or user-defined); and
a predicted user input for a
causing a display communicatively coupled with the wearable device to concurrently present as selectable
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hartz discloses text input prediction (Hartz, Abstract), including
present as selectable alternatives (i) a representation of the local application and the operation to provide an application-specific action associated with a character identified from the text-symbolic hand gesture (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – partial input of “ca” results in results including camera, calendar, and message applications predictions. Selection of the suggestion results in commanding the application to perform the action. For example, selecting the “calendar” application from the list would result in opening the application),
and (ii) the predicted user input to initiate sending of the message to a contact of the user based on the character (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – Selection of “Send Message to Caro” would result in executing a chat command for the contact “caro”. Fig. 3 with ¶0034 – inputting a contact, for example, triggers suggestions for sending messages to the contact);
providing instructions that cause the device to initiate sending of the message containing the predicted user input to another electronic device associated with the contact of the user (Hartz, ¶0046-¶0047 – inputting a message character may result in the suggestion for the command to send a message containing the inputted text to a contact);
and in response to a determination that the subsequent input selects the representation of the local application and the operation, providing instructions that cause the device to initiate performance of the operation by the local application (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – Selection of the suggestion results in commanding the application to perform the action).
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 predicted user input commands of Berenzweig to include providing selectable representations of the application-specific action, including messaging contacts, based on the teachings of Hartz. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend predictive functions beyond text terms to deep behaviors or tendencies of users in accessing applications and associated functions (Hartz, ¶0017-¶0018).
However, Berenzweig as modified appears not to expressly disclose an operation of sending the message to the identified contact of the user. However, in the same field of endeavor, Coglon discloses managing user messaging requests (Coglon, Abstract), including
detecting a command of sending the message to the identified contact of the user (Coglon, ¶0098 – detected user command includes sending a message to a contact specified in the command with a message specified in the same command).
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 suggested options of sending a message to a recognized contact and sending a recognized message to a contact of Berenzweig as modified to include suggesting to send the input message to the recognized input contact based on the teachings of Coglon. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable more complete recognition of the input command, and reduce the number of steps required for user input of a message request.
Regarding claim 18, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein initiating sending of message containing the predicted user input to another electronic device associated with the contact of the user includes one or more of: causing an application on the wearable device to send the message to the other electronic device, causing a portion of a user interface presented by the wearable device to be populated with the message for review before sending, causing the message to be shared with the other electronic device associated with the contact of the user (Hartz, Fig. 4 with ¶0036, ¶0046-¶0048, ¶0054 – sending an email to a contact corresponding to the text input).
Regarding claim 19, Berenzweig discloses a wrist-wearable device, comprising: one or more sensors; one or more processors; and
detect, by a wearable device worn by a user, a text-symbolic hand gesture performed by the user (Berenzweig, ¶0031-¶0032, ¶0170 – neuromuscular signals are detected by the wearable device. ¶0111, ¶0173 – input signals include text input including handwritten text, as well as entry via a virtual keyboard, each including detected mid-air gestures);
in response to detecting the text-symbolic hand gesture, identify, based on a character identified from the text-symbolic hand gesture (Berenzweig, ¶0174-¶0176 – gestures for continuation/input of a word, editing a word or character, and inserting a space to indicate that characters are not linked to enable input of a new word (set of linked characters));
a local application on the wearable device associated with the character and an operation to be performed on the local application (Berenzweig, ¶0152 – application-defined gestures including gestures mapped to commands or user-defined); and
a predicted user input for a
cause a display communicatively coupled with the wearable device to concurrently present as selectable
However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hartz discloses text input prediction (Hartz, Abstract), including
present as selectable alternatives (i) a representation of the local application and the operation to provide an application-specific action associated with a character identified from the text-symbolic hand gesture (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – partial input of “ca” results in results including camera, calendar, and message applications predictions. Selection of the suggestion results in commanding the application to perform the action. For example, selecting the “calendar” application from the list would result in opening the application),
and (ii) the predicted user input to initiate sending of the message to a contact of the user based on the character (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – Selection of “Send Message to Caro” would result in executing a chat command for the contact “caro”. Fig. 3 with ¶0034 – inputting a contact, for example, triggers suggestions for sending messages to the contact);
providing instructions that cause the device to initiate sending of the message containing the predicted user input to another electronic device associated with the contact of the user (Hartz, ¶0046-¶0047 – inputting a message character may result in the suggestion for the command to send a message containing the inputted text to a contact);
and in response to a determination that the subsequent input selects the representation of the local application and the operation, providing instructions that cause the device to initiate performance of the operation by the local application (Hartz, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0036-¶0047 – Selection of the suggestion results in commanding the application to perform the action).
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 predicted user input commands of Berenzweig to include providing selectable representations of the application-specific action, including messaging contacts, based on the teachings of Hartz. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend predictive functions beyond text terms to deep behaviors or tendencies of users in accessing applications and associated functions (Hartz, ¶0017-¶0018).
However, Berenzweig as modified appears not to expressly disclose an operation of sending the message to the identified contact of the user. However, in the same field of endeavor, Coglon discloses managing user messaging requests (Coglon, Abstract), including
detecting a command of sending the message to the identified contact of the user (Coglon, ¶0098 – detected user command includes sending a message to a contact specified in the command with a message specified in the same command).
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 suggested options of sending a message to a recognized contact and sending a recognized message to a contact of Berenzweig as modified to include suggesting to send the input message to the recognized input contact based on the teachings of Coglon. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable more complete recognition of the input command, and reduce the number of steps required for user input of a message request.
Regarding claim 20, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 19 above, and further discloses wherein initiating sending of the message containing the predicted user input to another electronic device associated with the contact of the user includes one or more of: causing an application on the wearable device to send the message to the other electronic device, causing a portion of a user interface presented by the wearable device to be populated with the message for review before sending, causing the message to be shared with the other electronic device associated with the contact of the user (Hartz, Fig. 4 with ¶0036, ¶0046-¶0048, ¶0054 – sending an email to a contact corresponding to the text input).
Regarding claim 21, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the computing device, further cause the wrist-wearable device to perform: in response to detecting a subsequent text-symbolic hand gesture performed by the user, determining whether a subsequent character identified from the subsequent text-symbolic hand gesture is a linking character that connects to the character to form a set of characters; and updating the local application, the operation, and the predicted user input based on a determination of whether the subsequent character is the linking character (Berenzweig , ¶0174-¶0176 – gestures for continuation/input of a word, editing a word or character, and inserting a space to indicate that characters are not linked to enable input of a new word (set of linked characters). Hartz, Fig. 4-6 with ¶0036 – updating suggestions for opening camera, calendar, or call applications as additional characters, including linked characters are input).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Hartz in further view of Coglon in further view of Kim.
Regarding claim 13, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose wherein the character determined based on the text-symbolic hand gesture has a character error rate less than 10 percent.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a 3D handwriting input model (Kim, Abstract), including
wherein the character determined based on the text-symbolic hand gesture has a character error rate less than 10 percent (Kim, Pages 50-53 with Figs. 12 and 15 – digit and alphabet character recognition error rate is less than 10 percent).
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 recognition of Berenzweig to realize a character error rate less than 10 percent based on the teachings of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve writing speed, efficiency, and reduce frustration for users.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Hartz in further view of Coglon in further view of Xin.
Regarding claim 14, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Berenzweig appears not to expressly disclose wherein the character and/or predicted user input are determined such that a rate at which the user generates one or more words is at least 20 words per minute.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xin discloses a VR 3D text input model with predicted text (Xin, Abstract with Fig. 10), including
wherein the character and/or predicted user input are determined such that the rate at which the user generates one or more words is at least 20 words per minute (Xin, Abstract - over 20 WPM input speed. See also Pages 17-18, 23 with Fig. 11 (a) and (b)).
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 recognition of Berenzweig to realize a character input speed over 20 wpm based on the teachings of Xin. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve usability in real world tasks (Xin, Abstract) and improve the user’s confidence with the interface, improving the experience and overall efficiency (Xin, Pages 21-22).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Hartz in further view of Coglon in further view of Rubin.
Regarding claim 16, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the determination that the text-symbolic hand gesture is associated with a character includes: comparing image and/or sensor data captured by the wrist-wearable device with stored character data including predefined character data, user specific character data, recognition. ¶0142 – individual characteristics and tendencies for movement patterns are included in the inference model. ¶0174-¶0176 – gestures for continuation/input of a word, editing a word or character, and inserting a space to indicate that characters are not linked to enable input of a new word (set of linked characters).
However, Berenzweig as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rubin discloses detecting EMG signals from a wrist-wearable device (Rubin, Abstract, ¶0045-¶0046, ¶0052, Fig. 11 with ¶0100-¶0101) communicatively coupled with augmented reality display (Rubin, ¶0043) including
comparing image and/or sensor data captured by the wrist-wearable device with stored character data including predefined character data, user specific character data, user-device specific character data, and selecting, based on comparison of the image and/or sensor data with the stored character data, the character (Rubin, Fig. 9 with ¶0046, ¶0089 – statistical model is trained based on sensor data stored and used in identification. Sensor signals are input to the inference model, which compares the sensor signals to a set of gestures and outputs a likelihood of match to the stored gestures. ¶0124-¶0125 – personalized data collected from additional training sessions for generating a personalized inference model. ¶0136-¶0156 – training data specifically for neuromuscular sensor wearable device);
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 training of Berenzweig as modified to include device and user-specific training based on the teachings of Rubin. The motivation for doing so would have been improve accuracy for detecting user character inputs (Rubin, ¶0140).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenzweig in view of Hartz in further view of Coglon in further view of Kotler.
Regarding claim 22, Berenzweig as modified discloses the elements of claim 21 above, and further discloses wherein the determining of whether the subsequent character is the linking character is based on a property of the subsequent text-symbolic hand gesture,
However, Berenzweig as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kotler discloses detecting text, including from gesture entry (Kotler, ¶0036, ¶0060, ¶0063), including
determining of whether the subsequent character is the linking character is based on a property of the subsequent text, including whether the subsequent character is an uppercase character or a lowercase character (Kotler, ¶0037 – capitalization contained in text is used to detect the beginning and ending of a sentence).
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 text gesture recognition of Berenzweig as modified to include detecting capitalization based on the teachings of Kotler. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively identify elements of input text such as names and key words (Kotler, ¶0037).
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.
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