DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
2. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claim 19 recites a “computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored”, which is construed to cover transitory propagating signals under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The computer-readable medium is defined to include both transmission signal and storage media according to paragraph [0093]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
Transitory signals are non-statutory subject matter per se. See MPEP 2106. It is suggested that claim 19 be amended to recite one or more “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to limit the scope of the claims to encompass only statutory subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 use § 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 applicant regards as his 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.
3. Claim 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a first picture”, “a dynamic picture”, and “a target picture” and it is unclear the picture refers to the picture as a view or scene whin the XR environment, or as a two-dimensional image representing the picture.
Claims 5-7 recite “when the first trigger disappears” and “when the first trigger has not disappeared” and it is unclear what I meant by “when the first trigger disappears” and “when the first trigger has not disappeared”, including whether this refers to the user’s hands no longer being visible, the hands moving out of the field of view, or the input being removed from the XR environment.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
4. Claims 1-3, 11-14, 9-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindmeier et al. (US 2022/0084279 A1).
As in Claim 1, Lindmeier teaches a human-computer interaction method for an XR system (pars. 3-4, 43-46, XR or AR system), comprising:
displaying a first picture comprising at least one object to be operated (FIGS. 9A-9C, at least pars. 191-193, pars. an electronic device 101 displays a three-dimensional environment 910 comprising objects (e.g., cylinder 912 on top of representation of table 902, a manipulation globe 914) to be operated on a user interface);
acquiring a distance between a user's hands in response to a first trigger for operating the object to be operated (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 194, 196-197, 199, 201-203, 206, 209-211, the device acquires a distance between a user’s hands in response to a gesture);
displaying a dynamic picture in which a layout of the at least one object to be operated changes correspondingly with the distance between the user's hands, when the user's hands perform an action (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 194-211, 307-309, 317, when the user’s hands perform an action, the objects in the three-dimensional environment 910 can be dynamically changed/manipulated (e.g., rotated or resized)); and
in response to a second trigger for an operation result of the object to be operated, transitionally switching from a current dynamic picture to a corresponding target picture according to a distance change state of the user's hands during a process from the first trigger to the second trigger (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 194-211, 307-309, 317, the objects in the three-dimensional environment 910 can be dynamically changed/manipulated (e.g., rotated or resized) based on the changes in distance between two hands).
As in Claim 2, Lindmeier teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lindmeier further teaches that when the distance between the user's hands decreases, the layout of the at least one object to be operated scales inward (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 202-203, 209-210, 307-311, for example, when the distance between the user’s hands decreases the object can be reduced in size in FIG. 9C); and
when the distance between the user's hands increases, the layout of the at least one object to be operated scales outward (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 202-203, 209-210, 307-311, for example, when the distance between the user’s hands increases, the object can be increased in size).
As in Claim 3, Lindmeier teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lindmeier further teaches determining that the first trigger for operating the object to be operated is received, in a case where a target button on an operating handle connected to the XR system is pressed, or in a case where a target gesture made by the user is recognized (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 194-211).
As in Claim 9, Lindmeier teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lindmeier further teaches that the transitionally switching from the current dynamic picture to the corresponding target picture according to the distance change state of the user's hands during the process from the first trigger to the second trigger (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 194-211, 307-309, 317), comprises:
determining a corresponding operation event according to the distance change state of the user's hands during the process from the first trigger to the second trigger (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 194-211, 307-309, 317);
determining the target picture according to the operation event, wherein the target picture comprises a picture after regular arrangement of the at least one object to be operated, or a desktop interface, or a service interface of a target widget (FIGS. 9A-9C, pars. 202-203, 209-210, 307-311).
transitionally switching from the current dynamic picture to the target picture (see FIGS. 9A-9C).
As in Claim 10, Lindmeier teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Lindmeier further teaches that the distance change state comprises a direction of change and/or a degree of change in a final distance of the user's hands compared to an initial distance, the final distance is a distance between the user's hands at a moment corresponding to the second trigger, and the initial distance is a distance between the user's hands at a moment corresponding to the first trigger (Lindmeier, pars. 193, 203-211, 309-311).
Claims 11 and 12 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 9 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
5. Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindmeier et al. (US 2022/0084279 A1) in view of Shiraishi, Kosuke (US 2016/0179352 A1).
As in Claim 4, Lindmeier teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lindmeier further teaches determining a first target distance and a second target distance respectively based on an initial distance between the user's hands, wherein the initial distance is a distance between the user's hands at a moment corresponding to the first trigger (pars. 210, 309-311, the device/system determines the change in distance based on the initial distance between two hands and the amount that the distance changes); and
determining that the second trigger for the operation result of the object to be operated is received, in response to the distance between the user's hands being greater than the first target distance or less than the second target distance (pars. 194, 210, 309-311, the device/system determines the manipulation for the object when the distance is within a threshold distance or beyond a threshold distance), when the first trigger disappears.
Lindmeier does not appear to explicitly teach when the first trigger disappears.
However, in the same field of the invention, Shiraishi teaches when the first trigger disappears (pars. 88-90, the system determines the distance between the user’s finger and the touch panel when the user release the finger from the button).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for manipulating the object in the 3D environment based on the distance change between two hands, as taught by Lindmeier, and to incorporate the way to determine distance value after releasing the finger from the button, as taught by Shiraishi. The motivation is to avoid accidental inputs and confirm user intent.
As in Claim 5, Lindmeier-Shiraishi teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Lindmeier-Shiraishi further teaches reverting from a current dynamic picture back to the first picture, in response to the distance between the user's hands not being greater than the first target distance and not being less than the second target distance (Lindmeier, pars. 194, 196-199, 201-211, 241-245, 307-317), when the first trigger disappears (Shiraishi, 88-90).
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in an independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome the rejection under U.S.C. 101 rejection and 112 (b) rejections.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 are dependent of claim 6 and 17, respectively, and the references are not provided for those claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179