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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 4/24/2024.
Claim(s) 1-5 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1 is/are independent claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-5 is/are determined to be directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
The claim(s) is/are directed toward the abstract idea of detecting hand gestures from a projected image. The claim(s) do/does not contain any improvement to a technology or field, nor do they contain any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are not sufficient limitations beyond linking the abstract idea to a computer.
In analyzing the Applicant’s claims for subject matter eligibility we use the Alice Mayo framework.
See MPEP 2106 - Patent Subject Matter Eligibility.
In step 1 we determine that the claims are a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", (claim 1 is an input device with a display device), so we move to step 2A.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in Prong One we determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then we determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
In step 2A, Prong One we determine that the “head-mounted display device, which comprises an image projection module and a control module”, “hand gesture detection module”, limitations in the claims are directed to a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of detecting hand gestures from a projected image, which falls under the abstract idea grouping of methods of organizing human activity [mental processes, mathematical concepts] as described in MPEP 2106.04(a).
This moves us to Prong Two.
In step 2A, Prong Two we use the factors discussed in 2106.04(d)(I) to determine that the abstract idea is not integrated to a practical application. Specifically the claims take the abstract idea of detecting hand gestures from a projected image and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).] This moves us to step 2B.
In step 2B, we determine that the “transmission module” in the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(A)-(B)).
For claims 2-5 we also determine that they do not recite significantly more.
Claim 2 recites an AR or VR device. Claim 3 recites “ultrasonic, laser, or infrared”. Claim 4 recites “infrared, ZigBee, Bluetooth, radio frequency, or laser based wireless transmission”. Claim 5 recites “a serial bus, RS232, or IEEE1394 based wired transmission”.
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, (See 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, including (II) that describes what courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner).
Although the applicant adds the idea of detecting hand gestures from a projected image to a computing device, the addition of a computing device does not add "something more" to the claims. This merely takes the abstract idea and simply adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao; Sunil K. et al. US Pub. No. 2016/0295038 (Rao).
Claim 1:
Rao teaches:
A virtual input device [¶ 0014] (projected keyboard or intelligent electronic glasses), comprising:
a head-mounted display device [¶ 0133, 200] (FIG. 12. shows an intelligent electronic glasses and smartphone configured with a camera, laser, and projector in communication with a smartphone. The glasses may project a keyboard onto a hand or surface and allow a user to compose a message on a non-touch surface), which comprises an image projection module and a control module [¶ 0034] (glasses include a micro-projector so that they can display content on to a hand, wall, pavement) [¶ ] ();
a hand gesture detection module, which is arranged on the head-mounted display device [¶ 0039, 52] (a laser may be used to track and identify gestures), the hand gesture detection module being electrically connected with the control module [¶ 0122, 156-163] (Fig. 1, sensors connected to display and projector); and
a transmission module, which is electrically connected with the control module [¶ 0122, 156-163] (wired or wireless transmission and communication).
Claim 2:
Rao teaches:
The virtual input device according to claim 1, wherein the head-mounted display device is a head-mounted augmented reality (AR) display device or a head-mounted virtual reality (VR) display device [¶ 0056-57] (virtual reality) [¶ 0133, 200] (FIG. 12. shows an intelligent electronic glasses and smartphone configured with a camera, laser, and projector in communication with a smartphone. The glasses may project a keyboard onto a hand or surface and allow a user to compose a message on a non-touch surface) [¶ 0100-118, 123-125, 192] (augmented reality).
Claim 3:
Rao teaches:
The virtual input device according to claim 1, wherein the hand gesture detection module is a non-contact hand gesture detection module, comprising an ultrasonic, laser, or infrared based hand gesture detection module [¶ 0039, 52, 192, 204, 206] (a laser may be used to track and identify gestures) [¶ 0014-16, 192] (infrared).
Claim 4:
Rao teaches:
The virtual input device according to claim 1, wherein the transmission module is an infrared, ZigBee, Bluetooth, radio frequency, or laser based wireless transmission module [¶ 0014-16, 64, 207] (Bluetooth or WiFi, WiFi is a “radio frequency”) [¶ 0014-16, 192] (infrared).
Claim 5:
Rao teaches:
The virtual input device according to claim 1, wherein the transmission module is a serial bus, RS232, or IEEE1394 based wired transmission module [¶ 0014-16] (IEEE 1394) [¶ 0166, 180] (serial) [¶ 0011, 68, 108, 113, 122, 126, 157-163, 168-171, 187, 190, 193-195] (wired or wireless communication means).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Chaudhri; Imran A. et al. US 20210117680 laser projection can label objects, provide text or instructions related to the objects and provide an ephemeral user interface (e.g., a keyboard, numeric key pad, device controller)
BLUM; Ronald D. et al. US 20130329183 [0402] Eyewear Projecting a Wireless Keyboard.
Wang; Paul X. et al. US 20250004545 Projection systems also may be configured to project virtual objects into the physical environment.
Stolzenberg; Karen US 11531402 FIG. 9 is a perspective illustration of an example bimanual hand gesture for selecting one or more items or keys, such as keyboard keys, which are projected or otherwise presented onto a portion of the palmar surface 622 of the first hand.
Kandur Raja; Barath Raj et al. US 20160209928 projected keyboard, detect a gesture by a user hand. At least one of an image sensor (e.g., a camera), a stereo camera, an infrared camera, or an ultrasonic sensor may be used to detect a user gesture.
Border; John N. et al. US 20160187654 projected virtual keyboard 3008 to the wearer, such as onto a tabletop.
Osterhout; Ralph F. et al. US 20120194420 the virtual keyboard projected on the palm of the first user hand.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov