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
1. This is in response to application filed on April 25 2024 in which claim 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1, 19 and 20 are in independent form.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 7-10 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 14-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
5. Claim 14, the sentences recite “a middle finger crossing a pointer finger” seems to be
ambiguous in definition. It is not clear from specification or in figures as to how the middle finger being
crossed. Appropriate correction is requested.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner assumes as pointing finger of one hand over another hand.
6. Claim 15, the sentences recite “second hand gesture comprises a middle finger crossing a
pointer finger, wherein the operation comprises a reply or retry operation” seems to be
ambiguous in definition. It is not clear from specification or in figures as to how the middle finger being
crossed and how crossing the finger corresponds to a reply or retry operation. Appropriate correction
is requested.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
In light of the aforementioned rejections of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, any subsequent rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 are based on prior art that reads on the interpretation of the claim language of the instant application as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to support the limitation " determining that the second hand gesture represents a mascot of a particular team; and in response to determining that the second hand gesture represents the mascot of the particular team and that the current context of the user system comprises the sports application, accessing sporting information associated with the particular team”. Nothing within the specification supports that sports team mascot.
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.
8. Claims 1-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hilliges (US PG Pub 2012/0113223) published on May 10, 2012 in view of Chiu et al. (US PG Pub 20230100689) filed on September 24, 2022.
As per claim 1, 19 and 20, Hilliges teaches A method comprising: detecting, by a user system, a first hand gesture depicted in a video, the first hand gesture performed by a first hand of a person(fig 3 Para[0043] dominant hand 300 to actuate the first button 304 or second button 306 by touching the palm of the non-dominant hand 302 at the location of the first button 304 or second button 306, as taught by Hilliges);
in response to detecting the first hand gesture, accessing a first menu comprising a plurality of options(Para[0042-0048] virtual objects such as 306, 304, 316, 314 being displayed based on hand gesture, as taught by Hilliges);
detecting, from when the first hand gesture is detected, a second hand gesture depicted in the video(fig 3 Para[0042-0045] discloses movement of dominant and no dominant hand, as taught by Hilliges); and
in response to detecting, from when the first hand gesture is detected, the second hand gesture, performing an operation associated with an individual option of the plurality of options of the first menu(Para[0042-0048] fig 3-5 discloses a "copy" icon 308, "paste" icon 310, "send" icon 312, "save" icon 314 and "new" icon 316 associated with a respective fingertip. The user 100 can then activate a desired control by touching the fingertip associated with the rendered icon, as taught by Hilliges).
Hilliges does not explicitly teach detecting gesture within a threshold period of time
On the other hand, Chiu teaches detecting gesture within a threshold period of time(Para[0210-0212] user making input within time threshold, as taught by Chiu)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hilliges invention with the teaching of Chiu because doing so would allowing a user to
quickly and efficiently perform those different types of operations, thereby making the user-device
interaction more efficient.
As per claim 2, the combination of Hilliges and Chiu teaches wherein the second hand gesture is
performed by the first hand of the person(fig 3-5 show both hand of the user, as taught by Hilliges).
As per claim 3, the combination of Hilliges and Chiu teaches wherein the second hand gesture is
performed by a second hand of the person, the first and second hand gestures being simultaneously
depicted in the video(fig 3-5 [0042-0045]show both hand of the user and user uses the dominant
hand to activate an icon, as taught by Hilliges).
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hilliges (US PG Pub 2012/0113223) published on May 10, 2012 in view of Chiu et al. (US PG Pub 20230100689) filed on September 24, 2022 in further view of Jatti(US PG Pub 2022/0350415) published on November 03, 2022.
As per claim 4, the combination of Hilliges and Chiu teaches gestures respectively with a first set
of Menus(fig 2-5 Para[0042-45] shows menu item based on gesture, as taught by Hilliges)
the combination of Hilliges and Chiu does not teach further comprising: storing a first table that associates different gestures, the first table being associated with a first context of the user system.
On the other hand, Jatti teaches further comprising: storing a first table that associates different gestures, the first table being associated with a first context of the user system(Para[0096-0102][0108]gesture table associated with the functions, as taught by Jatti).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hilliges and Chiu invention with the teaching of Jatti because doing so would allows
users to efficiently and effectively use and navigate their media devices.
7. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hilliges (US PG Pub 2012/0113223) published on May 10, 2012 in view of Chiu et al. (US PG Pub 20230100689) filed on September 24, 2022 in further view of Jatti(US PG Pub 2022/0350415) published on November 03, 2022 in further view of WIgdor (US PG Pub 2011/0117526) published on May 19, 2011.
As per claim 5, the combination of Hilliges, Chiu and Jatti teaches further comprising: searching the first table to identify which of the different gestures corresponds to the first hand gesture(Para[0096-0102][0108]gesture table associated with the functions with hand gesture, as taught by Jatti); and
the combination of Hilliges, Chiu and Jatti does not teach identifying the first menu from the first set of menus that is associated with the first hand gesture in the first table in response to searching the table.
On the other hand, WIgdor teaches identifying the first menu from the first set of menus that is associated with the first hand gesture in the first table in response to searching the table(fig 3-6 Para[0022][0030-0034] discloses posture guide include catalogues. a plurality of generically labeled gestures 26b(menu) that may be performed from the registration hand posture of catalogue 18b, as taught by Widgor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hilliges, Jatti and Chiu invention with the teaching of WIdgor because doing so would
result in allowing the users to efficiently and effectively making their desired input on the touch screen.
As per claim 6, the combination of Hilliges, Chiu, WIdgor and Jatti teaches further comprising: presenting a first augmented reality (AR) object over the first hand of the person to indicate that a current context of the user system corresponds to the first context(fig 2-5 Para[0042-45][0054], as taught by Hilliges).
10. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hilliges (US PG Pub 2012/0113223) published on May 10, 2012 in view of Chiu et al. (US PG Pub 20230100689) filed on September 24, 2022 in further view of WIgdor (US PG Pub 2011/0117526) published on May 19, 2011.
As per claim 11, the combination of Hilliges and Chiu does not teach further comprising: presenting a list of available hand gestures corresponding to each of the plurality of options of the first menu.
On the other hand, Widgor teaches further comprising: presenting a list of available hand gestures corresponding to each of the plurality of options of the first menu(fig 4-6 e.g. 26a-c, as taught by WIdgor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hilliges and Chiu invention with the teaching of WIdgor because doing so would
result in allowing the users to efficiently and effectively making their desired input on the touch screen.
As per claim 12, the combination of Hilliges, Chiu, and Widgor teaches wherein the second hand gesture is a same gestures as the first hand gesture and causes a different operation to be performed than the first hand gesture(Para[0045][0054] discloses system track the hand movement. If the pose of the hand is sufficiently close to a predefined pose in the library, then the corresponding gesture is detected. Upon detecting a given gesture, an associated interaction is triggered 608 between the hand of the user and a virtual object. Its is obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art that same gesture can be performed with both hands, as taught by Widgor).
11. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hilliges (US PG Pub 2012/0113223) published on May 10, 2012 in view of Chiu et al. (US PG Pub 20230100689) filed on September 24, 2022 in further view of Iyer (US PG Pub 2020/0097065) published on March 26, 2020
As per claim 13, the combination of Hilliges and Chiu does not teach wherein the first and
second hand gestures comprise a number of fingers raised on the first hand to represent a numerical
value.
On the other hand, Iyer teaches wherein the first and second hand gestures comprise a
number of fingers raised on the first hand to represent a numerical value(fig 11 Para[0127] discloses a
user's hand 1111 with palm out hovering over xR object 1110 to be selected with fingers spread
apart over xR object 1110, as taught by Iyer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hilliges and Chiu invention with the teaching of Iyer because doing so would
result in allowing users to interact with virtual objects that are out of reach of the user.
As per claim 14, the combination of Hilliges, Chiu and Iyer teaches further comprising: determining that the first hand gesture comprises a middle finger crossing a pointer finger(fig 17A-B shows finger being crossed, as taught by Iyer), wherein the first menu comprises a settings menu associated with the first hand gesture(Para[0046-0047], as taught by Hilliges).
12. Claims 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hilliges (US PG Pub 2012/0113223) published on May 10, 2012 in view of Chiu et al. (US PG Pub 20230100689) filed on September 24, 2022 in view of Iyer (US PG Pub 2020/0097065) published on March 26, 2020 in further view of Reisman(US PG Pub 2024/0061514) published on February 22, 2024.
As per claim 15, the combination of Hilliges, Chiu and Iyer teaches further comprising: determining that the second hand gesture comprises a middle finger crossing a pointer finger(fig 17-b, as taught by Iyer),
the combination of Hilliges, Chiu and Iyer does not teach wherein the operation comprises a reply or retry operation.
On the other hand, Reisman teaches wherein the operation comprises a reply or retry operation(Para[0044] air hand gestures to compose and send a response without interrupting her jog, as taught by Reisman).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hilliges, Iyer and Chiu invention with the teaching of Reisman because doing
so would result in allowing a user to efficiently interact with a user interface using gestures detected by
the one or more wearable devices (e.g., a wrist-wearable device) that include sensors for detecting
gestures performed by the user.
As per claim 17, the combination of Hilliges, Chiu, Iyer and Reisman teaches further comprising: determining an intensity of the second hand gesture(Para[0154] user quickly flicks their wrist the point of focus moves faster than if the user slowly rotates their wrist, as taught by Reisman); and modifying the individual option faster or slower based on the intensity of the second hand gesture(Para[0154] the point of focus moves (1012) at a speed that corresponds to a wrist angle of the wrist of the user, as taught by Reisman) .
As per claim 18, the combination of Hilliges, Chiu, Iyer and Reisman teaches wherein the operation associated with the individual option of the plurality of options of the first menu corresponds to a second menu(fig 12a-d and 14, as taught by Iyer), further comprising:
detecting a third hand gesture depicted in the video(Para[0083-0064 fig 1A-G and 6A-D shows multiple gesture, as taught by Reisman); and
in response to detecting the third hand gesture, performing a different operation associated with one of a set of options of the second menu(Para[0083-0064 fig 1A-G and 6A-D shows multiple gesture and each gesture is used to perform different operation, as taught by Reisman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM 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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Tuesday, March 31, 2026