DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-22 rejected via four references on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting:
Claims 21 and 1 and 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) with SEARCH machine translation.
Claims 22 and 2 and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation:
Claims 3 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of GE et al. (CN 101826217 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claims 4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1):
Claims 6 and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in claim 4 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1):
Claims 5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1):
Claims 7 and 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in the rejection of claims 6 and 5 further in view of ANDREEVICH et al. (SU 1375483 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claims 8 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in the rejection of claims 6 and 5 further in view of ANDREEVICH et al. (SU 1375483 A1) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 7 further in view Lau et al. (US 2013/0275907 A1) and further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation as applied in claim 22:
Claims 10 and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in the rejection of claim 8 further in view of ANDREEVICH et al. (SU 1375483 A1) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 7 further in view of further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation as applied in claims 22/8 further in view of Lau et al. (US 2013/0275907 A1) as applied in the rejection of claim 8 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in the rejection of claim 6:
Claims 9 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in the rejection of claim 6 further in view of ANDREEVICH et al. (SU 1375483 A1) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 7 further in view of further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in the rejection of claims 4 and 6:
Claims 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in claim 4 further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation as applied in claims 22 and 2 and 12:
Claims 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in claim 4 further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation as applied in claims 22 and 2 and 12, further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in claims 6:
Priority
PNG
media_image1.png
1331
1129
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step zero: establish broadest reasonable interpretation as shown in footnotes throughout this Office action;
Step 1: Claim 1 is a machine; claim 11 a manufacture; claim 21 a process;
Step 2A, prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process and math:
Claim 21 (representative of claims 11 & 21):
calculating observed edges…
fitting closed curves to the observed edges…
selecting a closed curve from a family of similar closed curves…using an assumed parameter…
using fitted closed curves to construct a complex control object:
PNG
media_image2.png
571
1015
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: abstract idea: mental process & math:
--tracking motion…
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images, calculating observed edges, fitting closed curves and using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions over time; and
calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of a complex control object--:
6. The system of claim 4, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images, calculating observed edges, fitting closed curves and using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions over time; and
calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of a complex control object:
PNG
media_image3.png
275
889
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, prong 2: This mental & math judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (“captured images” “control object” “processor” “medium” “making a gesture”) do not improve technology or a technical field or the function of a computer in view of applicant’s disclosure:
PNG
media_image4.png
1165
1125
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because each additional element, such as “captured images” “control object” “processor” “medium” “making a gesture”, considered individually or with the mental process & math adheres to conventional practices as indicated in applicant’s specification’s background1:
PNG
media_image5.png
1565
1121
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-22 rejected via four references on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting:
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 is found in reference claims 1,7,8, for example:
18/664,251
9,070,019
21. A method for determining a gesture command from analysis of differences in positions of fit closed curves fit to observed edges of a control object to track motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space, including repeatedly:
1. A method of locating a control object appendage in three dimensional (3D) space, including:
obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space;
recording images of a control object appendage in 3D space using at least two geometrically distinct predetermined vantages;
calculating observed edges of the control object from the captured images;
calculating by a processor four co-planar tangents to observed edges of the control object appendage from the recorded images;
fitting closed curves to the observed edges of the control object, including control object appendages for multiple portions of any complex control objects, as captured in the captured images by selecting a closed curve from a family of similar closed curves that fit the observed edges of the control object as captured using an assumed parameter; and
fitting an ellipse by a processor to the cross-section of the control object appendage by selecting the ellipse from a family of ellipses that fit the four co-planar tangents using an assumed parameter;
using fitted closed curves to construct a complex control object from multiple portions of any complex control objects and one or more of control object appendages appended thereto.
(via claims 7 & 8) for2 a complex control object model that includes a palm and multiple fingers, applying the method of claim 7 to construct the multiple fingers of control object appendages; and
Claim 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 is found in reference claim 3 for example:
18/664,251
9,070,019
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the complex control object is a hand, and further comprising:
3. A method of locating a complex control object in 3D space, including:
for a complex control object model that includes a palm and multiple fingers, applying the method of claim 2 to construct the multiple fingers of control object appendages; and
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of a palm and cross sections of multiple fingers to fingers attached to the palm to represent the complex control object as captured in the captured images.
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges from the images in positions correlated with the multiple fingers.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2 in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2.
Reference-method claim 1 teaches all the limitations of system-claim 1 except for the difference of system-claim 1’s “system”.
U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2 teaches the difference of system-claim 1’s “system” (as discussed in the below rejection of system-claim 1).
Since reference-method claim 1 teaches calculating, one of skill in the art of calculating can make reference-method claim 1 be as system-claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2 predictably recognizing the change being faster than normal/average/ordinary via a computer processor.
Claims 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2 in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2.
U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2 of the combination of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2,U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2 teaches claims 2-21 in the corresponding rejection, below.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2 in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2.
Reference-method claim 1 teaches all the limitations of system-claim 1 except for the difference of system-claim 1’s “system”.
U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2 teaches the difference of system-claim 1’s “system” (as discussed in the below rejection of system-claim 1).
Since reference-method claim 1 teaches calculating, one of skill in the art of calculating can make reference-method claim 1 be as system-claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2 predictably recognizing the change being faster than normal/average/ordinary via a computer processor.
Claims 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2 in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2.
U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2 of the combination of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2, U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2 teaches claims 2-21 in the corresponding rejection, below.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2 in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2.
Reference-method claim 1 teaches all the limitations of system-claim 1 except for the difference of system-claim 1’s “system”.
U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2 teaches the difference of system-claim 1’s “system” (as discussed in the below rejection of system-claim 1).
Since reference-method claim 1 teaches calculating, one of skill in the art of calculating can make reference-method claim 1 be as system-claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2 predictably recognizing the change being faster than normal/average/ordinary via a computer processor.
Claims 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2 in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2.
U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2 of the combination of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,019 B2, U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2 teaches claims 2-21 in the corresponding rejection, below.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1,7,8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because system claim 1 is found in reference-system claims 1,7,8, as similarly discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 21.
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1,7,8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 is found in reference claims 1,7,8, for example:
18/664,251
9,945,660
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the complex control object is a hand, and further comprising:
8. The system of claim 7, further including:
one or more processors coupled to memory, the memory loaded with computer instructions that, when executed on the processors, implement actions including:
for a complex control object model that includes a palm and multiple fingers, applying the actions of claim 7 to construct multiple fingers of control object appendages; and
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of a palm and cross sections of multiple fingers to fingers attached to the palm to represent the complex control object as captured in the captured images.
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges from the images in positions correlated3 with the multiple fingers.
Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 is found in reference claims 2.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 is found in reference claims 3.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 is found in reference claims 5.
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 is found in reference claims 6.
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 is found in reference claims 7.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 is found in reference claims 8.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 is found in reference claims 9.
Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 is found in reference claims 10.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 11,17,18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is found in reference claims 11,17,18.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 11,17,18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 is found in reference claims 11,17,18.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 is found in reference claims 12.
Claim 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 is found in reference claims 13.
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 is found in reference claims 15.
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 is found in reference claims 16.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 is found in reference claims 17.
Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 is found in reference claims 18.
Claim 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 is found in reference claims 19.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 is found in reference claims 20.
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1 & 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 is found in reference claims 1 & 11.
Claim 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 8 & 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,945,660 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 is found in reference claims 8 & 18.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is found in reference claims 1,5,6 for example:
18/664,251
10,767,982
1. A system for recognizing gestures from a control object moving in three dimensional (3D) space, the system including:
1. A system of recognizing gestures from a control object moving in three dimensional (3D) space, the system including:
one or more processors coupled to a memory, the memory loaded with computer instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, implement actions to analyze differences in positions of fit closed curves fit to observed edges of a control object to enable tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space, by repeatedly:
one or more processors coupled to a memory, the memory loaded with computer instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, implement actions including:
obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space;
capturing images of a control object moving in 3D space using cameras having at least two geometrically distinct predetermined vantages;
calculating observed edges of the control object from the captured images;
calculating observed edges of the control object from the captured images;
fitting closed curves to the observed edges of the control object, including control object appendages for multiple portions of any complex control objects, as captured in the captured images by selecting a closed curve from a family of similar closed curves that fit the observed edges of the control object as captured using an assumed parameter; and
fitting closed curves to the observed edges of the control object as captured in the images by selecting the closed curve from a family of similar closed curves that fit the observed edges of the control object as captured using an assumed parameter;
using fitted closed curves to construct a complex control object from multiple portions of any complex control objects and one or more of control object appendages appended thereto.
6. The system of claim 5, further including:
for4 a complex control object model that includes a palm and multiple fingers, applying the determining and fitting a circle actions of claim 5 to construct multiple fingers of control object appendages; and
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of the palm as captured in the images.
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 is found in reference claims 7, for example:
18/664,251
10,767,982
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the complex control object is a hand, and further comprising:
7. The system of claim 6, further including:
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of a palm and cross sections of multiple fingers to fingers attached to the palm to represent the complex control object as captured in the captured images.
repeatedly applying the determining and fitting a circle and fitting cross sections5 actions of claim 6 over time; and
calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of the complex control object over time.
Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 is found in reference claims 1.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 is found in reference claims 2.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 is found in reference claims 3.
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 is found in reference claims 3.
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 is found in reference claims 5.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 is found in reference claims 6.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 is found in reference claims 7.
Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 is found in reference claims 8.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is found in reference claims 9.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 is found in reference claims 15.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 is found in reference claims 9.
Claim 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 is found in reference claims 10.
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 is found in reference claims 12.
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 is found in reference claims 11.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 is found in reference claims 13.
Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 is found in reference claims 14.
Claim 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 is found in reference claims 16.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 is found in reference claims 15.
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1 & 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 is found in reference claims 1 & 11.
Claim 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 7 & 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 is found in reference claims 7 & 15.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1,6,7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is found in reference claims 1,6,7, as similarly discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 21.
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 7 of U.S. Patent No.11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 is found in reference claims 7 for example:
18/664,251
11,994,377
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the complex control object is a hand, and further comprising:
7. The system of claim 6, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of a palm and cross sections of multiple fingers to fingers attached to the palm to represent the complex control object as captured in the captured images.
for6 a complex control object model that includes a palm and multiple fingers,
applying the determining and fitting a circle actions of claim 6 to construct multiple fingers of control object appendages; and
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of the palm as captured in the captured images.
Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 is found in reference claims 2.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 is found in reference claims 3.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 is found in reference claims 5.
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 is found in reference claims 6.
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 is found in reference claims 7.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 is found in reference claims 8.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 is found in reference claims 9.
Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 is found in reference claims 10.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is found in reference claims 10.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 is found in reference claims 16.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 is found in reference claims 11.
Claim 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 is found in reference claims 12.
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 is found in reference claims 13.
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 is found in reference claims 14.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 is found in reference claims 15.
Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 is found in reference claims 16.
Claim 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 is found in reference claims 17.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 is found in reference claims 18.
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1 & 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 is found in reference claims 1 & 11.
Claim 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 7 & 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,377 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 is found in reference claims 7 & 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21 and 1 and 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) with SEARCH machine translation.
PNG
media_image6.png
711
424
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Re 21. (representative of claims 11 and 21), MUNCEY teaches A method for determining a gesture command from analysis of differences in positions of fit closed curves fit to observed edges of a control object to track motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space7, including repeatedly (“specifies…with the placement of control points”, pg. 3, last txt blk):
obtaining captured images (“captured by computer video input device”, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk) of a control (“point”, pg. 4, 1st txt blk) object moving8 (“to the desired location relative to the picture”, pg. 3, 10th txt blk, via repeated movement) in 3D space (“mapping from the 3D object's control elements to the locations in the 2D picture”, pg. 3, 10th txt blk);
calculating (via “mapping…edges”, pg. 3, 3rd txt blk) observed edges of the control object from the captured images;
fitting closed curves (“until the lines of the displayed cage provide a visually acceptable fit to the visible edges of the pictured box”, pg. 7, last txt blk) to the observed edges of the control object,9 including10 control object appendages (comprised by a “three handle”-“dragging”11-“user”, pg. 23, 6th txt blk, represented in fig. 1:42: “PTG DEVICE”: a mouse) for multiple (bottle) portions (fig. 14A:247,242) of any complex control (“point”, pg. 4, 1st txt blk) objects (i.e., “wine bottle”-“complex”- “handles”, pg. 23, last txt blk),12 as captured in the captured images (“captured by computer video input device”, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk) by selecting (via a user-menu-tool-bar) a closed (via “closed form solution for…a space circle”, pg. 10, 12th txt blk) curve (“lying on the xyplane”, pg. 12, 5th txt blk) from a family13 of similar closed (via “closed form solution for…a space circle”, pg. 10, 12th txt blk) curves that fit (via a “curve” “fit” to a “silhouette”, pg. 12, 5th txt blk ) the observed edges of the control object as captured using an assumed (“consistent”, pg. 6, 8th txt blk) parameter (“used to take the picture”, pg. 12, 5th txt blk ); and
using fitted closed curves to construct (“in FreeD’s construction mode”, pg. 15, 10th txt blk: fig. 9: “Construction Mode Tool Bar”) a complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) from multiple (bottle) portions of any14 complex control objects (said complex-bottle) and one or more of control object appendages (comprised by a “three handle”-“dragging”15-“user” (limbs), pg. 23, 6th txt blk) appended16 (or limb-button held down comprised by a “three handle”-“dragging”17-“user”(limb), pg. 23, 6th txt blk) thereto1819 (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle holding (limb) down (joining) the square/diamond/circle handles via said button in fig. 14A-D).
MUNCEY does not teach the difference of claim 1 of:
closed (curve) from a family20 of similar… curves…
using fitted closed curves”.
TREMBLAY teaches the difference of claim 21:
closed (“rectangles and ellipses”, pg. 3 [0006]) (curve) from a (“particular shape”, pg. 21) family21 of similar… curves (or “similar” “shapes”22, pg. 29, 1st txt blk, curved, without breadth or thickness)…
(“After the recognition and enhancement step (230)”, pg. 39 [0077]): fig. 15, reproduced below: “Enhancement”) using (via “a user”) fitted closed curves (“if the curves fit an ellipse”, pg. 22 [0058], at each jigsaw puzzle curve-cut:
PNG
media_image7.png
914
770
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Since MUNCEY teaches fitting, one of skill in the art of fitting can make MUNCEY’s be as TREMBLAY’s predictably recognizing the change enhancing (puzzle/bottle) shapes:
PNG
media_image8.png
1054
1107
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected like claim 21:
1. A system for recognizing gestures from a control object moving in three dimensional (3D) space23, the system including:
one or more processors (or “processor 12”, pg. 5, 10th txt blk) coupled to a memory (“17”), the memory loaded with computer instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, implement actions to analyze differences in positions of fit closed curves fit to observed edges of a control object to enable tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space, by repeatedly:24
obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space;
calculating observed edges of the control object from the captured
images;
fitting closed curves to the observed edges of the control object, including
control object appendages for multiple portions of any complex control objects, as captured in the captured images by selecting a closed curve from a family of similar closed curves that fit the observed edges of the control object as captured using an assumed parameter; and
using fitted closed curves to construct a complex control object from
multiple portions of any complex control objects and one or more of control object appendages appended thereto.
Claim 11 is rejected like claims 21 and 1:
11. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions for analyzing differences in positions of fit closed curves fit to observed edges of a control object to enable tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space, which instructions, when executed by one or more processors, implement actions including repeatedly:
obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space;
calculating observed edges of the control object from the captured images;
fitting closed curves to the observed edges of the control object, including control object appendages for multiple portions of any complex control objects, as captured in the captured images by selecting a closed curve from a family of similar closed curves that fit the observed edges of the control object as captured using an assumed parameter; and
using fitted closed curves to construct a complex control object from multiple portions of any complex control objects of control object appendages appended thereto.
Claims 22 and 2 and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation:
PNG
media_image9.png
731
578
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
1567
1116
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Re 22., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches The method of claim 21, wherein the complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles25 in fig. 14A-D) is26 a hand (closest mapping is a handle27: fig. 14A: handle is not a hand consistent with applicant’s disclosure), and further comprising:
PNG
media_image11.png
685
562
media_image11.png
Greyscale
fitting28 (“to fit the shape of the pictured object”, pg. 38, 5th txt blk) cross sections (closest mapping to a singular “traced cross-section”, pg. 38, 5th txt blk and thus not plural cross sections) of29 a palm (via “touchpad”30) to3132 observed (“outline”, pg. 38, 5th txt blk) edges of33 a palm (connecting with the touchpad) and cross sections (closest mapping to a singular “traced cross-section”, pg. 38, 5th txt blk, and thus not plural cross sections) of34 multiple (four) fingers (via “touchpad”35) to363738 (four) fingers attached to the palm to represent (via “bitmap screen shots that appear on the display”, pg. 6, 4th txt blk) the complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) as captured in the captured images.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY does not teach the difference of claim 22 of:
“is a hand…
cross sections…
cross sections”.
DONNE Eddy teaches the difference of claim 22:
is a hand (via “Figure 1 schematically shows39…a hand”)…
cross sections40 (via “a cross-section on a larger scale” relative to fig. 1:3,8 a plurality of pictorial representations of such a cross-section) …
cross sections (or said cross-sectional pictorial representations in fig. 1:3,8 via:
PNG
media_image12.png
1451
826
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Since MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches a “command” (MUNCEY, pg. 21, 7th txt blk) , one of skill in the art of commands can make MUNCEY’s of the combination of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY be as Eddy’s predictably recognizing the change very accurately following commands such that “each sensor follows the movements of the” hand (i.e., body part) “very accurately”, Eddy, pg. 5:
PNG
media_image13.png
1294
889
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected like claim 22:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the complex control object is a hand, and further comprising:
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of a palm and cross sections of multiple fingers to fingers attached to the palm to represent the complex control object as captured in the captured images.
Claim 12 is rejected like claim 22:
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the complex control object is a hand, and further comprising:
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of a palm and cross sections of multiple fingers to fingers attached to the palm to represent the complex control object as captured in the captured images.
Claims 3 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of GE et al. (CN 101826217 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image14.png
731
578
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Re 3., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches The system of claim 1, wherein one or more fitted parameters (closest mapping to (1) “fit”-“parameters”, pg. 36, 9th txt blk, thus the fit-parameters are not “fitted” & (2) “ ‘goodness of fit’ value which is computed for sets of parameters”, pg. 47, last txt blk, are not “fitted”) of a first (jigsaw-puzzle) fitted closed curve (illustrated above) are substituted for41 (closest mapping to “eigenvectors42 are substituted into Eq. (5)”, pg. 12, 1st txt blk) one or more of the observed edges and the assumed parameter when fitting an adjacent second (jigsaw-puzzle) closed curve (illustrated above).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY does not teach the difference of claim 3 of “fitted”.
GE teaches the difference of claim 3:
“fitted” (“parameter X”, pg. 5, 3rd txt blk).
Since MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches matching, one of skill in the art of matching can make MUNCEY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY be as GE’s predictably recognizing the change is “fast matching”, GE, pg. 2 [0006].
Claim 13 is rejected like claim 3:
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein one or more fitted parameters of a first fitted closed curve are substituted for one or more of the observed edges and the assumed parameter when fitting an adjacent second closed curve.
Claims 4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1):
PNG
media_image15.png
731
578
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Re 4., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches The system of claim 1, wherein a first (puzzle) fitted closed curve is used (illustrated above) to filter fits43 of additional (puzzle) closed curves (illustrated above).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY does not teach the difference of claim 4 of “filter fits”.
Lu teaches the difference of claim 4 of:
filter fits (or temporally filtering each ellipse-fit via “filter to smooth the changes of the ellipse over time”, c. 9,ll. 8-13: fig. 8: “Ellipse-fitted flow motion region 801”).
Since MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches recognition (MUNCEY, pg. 34, last txt blk), one of skill in the art of recognition can make MUNCEY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY be as Lu’s predictably recognizing the change “is further refined for increased accuracy, resulting in an identified flow motion region”, Lu, c.3,ll.15-20.
Claims 6 and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in claim 4 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1):
PNG
media_image16.png
731
593
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Re 6., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu teaches The system of claim 4, wherein44 tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY),
calculating observed edges (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu),
fitting closed curves (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY) and using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions over time (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu); and
calculating motion (“by subtracting the camera motion determined in step 302 from the block motion vectors 403 calculated in step 301”, Lu, c.7,ll.1-5) of a complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, MUNCEY, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) over time based on (stable permanent basis) differences (“by subtracting”, Lu, c.7,ll. 1-5, and “determined45 by comparing46 consecutive frames of the video input 102”, Lu, c.6,ll.40-45) between modeled locations (via “elliptical modeling…of…flow motion…position”, Lu, c.3,ll.54-57) of a complex control object.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu does not teach the difference of claim 4 of:
“tracking motion…while47 making a gesture”.
Yee teaches the difference of claim 6:
tracking motion (via “motion module 204 tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part making48 the gesture” [0128] 2nd to last S)…
(“tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part” [0128] 2nd to last S) while (contemporaneously) making a gesture.
Since MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu teaches “user interactions” (MUNCEY, pg. 5, 7th txt blk), one of skill in the art of interactions can make MUNCEY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu be as Yee’s predictably recognizing the change being fast or “is performed in real time49”, Yee, [0065], quickly updating an interactive display:
PNG
media_image17.png
566
1027
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected like claim 6:
15. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images,
calculating observed edges, and
fitting closed curves actions over time; and
calculating motion of the control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of the control object.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1):
PNG
media_image18.png
731
593
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected like claim 6:
5. The system of claim 1, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images,
calculating observed edges, and
fitting closed curves actions over time; and
calculating motion of the control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of the control object (via the rejection of claim 6:.
Re 6., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu teaches The system of claim 4, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY),
calculating observed edges (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu),
fitting closed curves (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY) and using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions over time (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu); and
calculating motion (“by subtracting the camera motion determined in step 302 from the block motion vectors 403 calculated in step 301”, Lu, c.7,ll.1-5) of a complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, MUNCEY, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) over time based on (stable permanent basis) differences (“by subtracting”, Lu, c.7,ll. 1-5, and “determined50 by comparing51 consecutive frames of the video input 102”, Lu, c.6,ll.40-45) between modeled locations (via “elliptical modeling…of…flow motion…position”, Lu, c.3,ll.54-57) of a complex control object.
Claims 7 and 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in the rejection of claims 6 and 5 further in view of ANDREEVICH et al. (SU 1375483 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image19.png
731
699
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected like claim 5 which is rejected like claim 6:
Re 7., TREMBLAY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee teaches The system of claim 1, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture (see rejection claim 5 which is rejected like claim 6) in a 3D space further includes52:
determining53 and fitting a circle (“elongated”, TREMBLAY, pg. 24 [0064]) selected from among closed curves (“using fuzzy logic”, pg. 24 [0064]) for a plurality of (bottle) portions of the control object from the captured images, including54:
calculating55 three co planar tangents to observed edges of the control object from the captured images; and
fitting56 a circle (“elongated which may be an ellipse”, TREMBLAY, pg. 24 [0064], for said puzzle piece/bottle part) to the control object using at least the three co planar tangents.
TREMBLAY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY,Yee does not teach the difference of claim 7 of:
A) tracking motion…while making a gesture….
B) three co planar tangents…
C) using at least the three co planar tangents.
Yee already teaches/makes obvious the difference A) of claim 7 in the rejection of claim 6:
A) tracking motion (via “motion module 204 tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part making57 the gesture” [0128] 2nd to last S)…(“tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part” [0128] 2nd to last S) while (contemporaneously) making a gesture.
TREMBLAY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee does not teach the remaining difference of claim 7 of:
B) three co58 planar59 tangents60…
C) using at least the three co planar tangents”.
ANDREEVICH teaches the difference B) & C) of claim 7:
B) (I can see) three co61 planar62 tangents6364 (or “each” “three” “plane tangent”, pg. 2,4th txt blk: I can see three tangents in the below figure)…
C) using at least the three co planar tangents (resulting in “graphic works…can be used”, pg. 1, 7th txt blk:
PNG
media_image20.png
1022
1139
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Since MUNCEY and TREMBLAY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee teach drawing or sketching, one of skill in the art of drawing or sketching can make MUNCEY’s and TREMBLAY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee be as ANDREEVICH’s predictably recognizing graphic65 drawings of giving a clear and effective picture; vivid:
PNG
media_image21.png
1511
811
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected/interpreted like claim 7:
17. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
determining and fitting a circle selected from among closed curves in the family of similar closed curves for a plurality of portions of the control object from the captured images, including:
calculating three co-planar tangents to observed edges of the control object from the captured images; and
fitting a circle to the control object using at least the three co-planar tangents.
Claims 8 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in the rejection of claims 6 and 5 further in view of ANDREEVICH et al. (SU 1375483 A1) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 7 further in view Lau et al. (US 2013/0275907 A1) and further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation as applied in claim 22:
PNG
media_image22.png
731
911
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected like claims 6,7,22:
Re 8., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH, “DONNE Eddy” teaches The system of claim 7, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture (see rejection claim 6) in a 3D space further includes:
for a complex control object model (comprising “wine bottle”-“complex”- “handles”, MUNCEY, pg. 23, last txt blk) that includes6667 {{{a palm}}} and multiple fingers (via said mouse button dragging), applying the determining and fitting a circle actions68 (see rejection claim 7: pyramid/bottle drawing) to construct69 multiple fingers of control object appendages (comprised by a “three handle”-“dragging”70-“user” (limbs), MUNCEY, pg. 23, 6th txt blk); and
fitting cross sections of [[[a palm]]] to observed edges of the palm71 (via said mouse button dragging) as captured in the captured images (see rejection claim 22).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH does not teach the difference of claim 8 of:
A) tracking motion…while making a gesture…
B) construct multiple fingers…
C) cross sections”.
Yee already teaches/makes obvious the difference A) of claim 8 in the rejection of claims 6 and 7:
A) tracking motion (via “motion module 204 tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part making72 the gesture” [0128] 2nd to last S)…(“tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part” [0128] 2nd to last S) while (contemporaneously) making a gesture.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH does not teach the remaining difference of claim 8 of:
B) construct multiple fingers…
C) cross sections.
Lau teaches the difference B) of claim 8 of:
construct multiple fingers (via “construct a geometrical model of the hand…having…fingers” [0018], 4th & 5th Ss: fig. 5).
Since MUCEY and TREMBLAY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH teaches a sketch/drawing and fits, one of skill in the art of fits and sketches can make MUNCEY’s and TREMBLAY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH be as Lau’s “circle outline”73 (page 8, reproduced below) predictably recognizing the change results in the best value-fit sketch via “a least-squares74 algorithm”, Lau [0079], 2nd S.
PNG
media_image23.png
1507
1015
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
1511
811
media_image24.png
Greyscale
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH,Lau does not teach the last difference of claim 8 of:
C) cross sections.
DONNE already teaches/render obvious the last difference of claim 8 in the rejection of claim 22:
DONNE Eddy teaches the difference of claim 22:
is a hand (via “Figure 1 schematically shows…a hand”)…
cross sections75 (via “a cross-section on a larger scale” relative to fig. 1:3,8 a plurality of pictorial representations of such a cross-section) …
cross sections (or said cross-sectional pictorial representations in fig. 1:3,8 via:
PNG
media_image12.png
1451
826
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected/interpreted like claim 8:
18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
for a complex control object model that includes a palm and multiple fingers, applying the determining and fitting a circle actions to construct multiple fingers of control object appendages; and
fitting cross sections of a palm to observed edges of the palm as captured in the captured images.
Claims 10 and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in the rejection of claim 8 further in view of ANDREEVICH et al. (SU 1375483 A1) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 7 further in view of further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation as applied in claims 22/8 further in view of Lau et al. (US 2013/0275907 A1) as applied in the rejection of claim 8 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in the rejection of claim 6:
PNG
media_image25.png
730
964
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Re 10., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH, “DONNE Eddy”,Lau teaches The system of claim 8, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly (via said repeated control point specification) applying the determining and fitting a circle and fitting cross sections actions (see rejection claim 8) over time; and
calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of the complex control object.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH, “DONNE Eddy”,Lau does not teach the difference of claim 10 of:
A) tracking motion … while making a gesture …
B) calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of”.
Yee already teaches/makes obvious the difference A) of claim 10 in the rejection of claims 6 and 7 and 8:
A) tracking motion (via “motion module 204 tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part making76 the gesture” [0128] 2nd to last S)…(“tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part” [0128] 2nd to last S) while (contemporaneously) making a gesture.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH, “DONNE Eddy”,Lau does not teach the last difference of claim 10 of:
B) calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of.
Lu already teaches/renders obvious last limitation B) in the rejection of claims 4 & 6:
Re 4., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches The system of claim 1, wherein a first (puzzle) fitted closed curve is used (illustrated above) to filter fits of additional (puzzle) closed curves (illustrated above).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY does not teach the difference of claim 4 of “filter fits”.
Lu teaches the difference of claim 4 of:
filter fits (or temporally filtering each ellipse-fit via “filter to smooth the changes of the ellipse over time”, c. 9,ll. 8-13: fig. 8: “Ellipse-fitted flow motion region 801”).
Since MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches recognition (MUNCEY, pg. 34, last txt blk), one of skill in the art of recognition can make MUNCEY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY be as Lu’s predictably recognizing the change “is further refined for increased accuracy, resulting in an identified flow motion region”, Lu, c.3,ll.15-20.
Re 6., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu teaches The system of claim 4, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY),
calculating observed edges (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu),
fitting closed curves (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY) and using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions over time (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu); and
calculating motion (“by subtracting the camera motion determined in step 302 from the block motion vectors 403 calculated in step 301”, Lu, c.7,ll.1-5) of a complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, MUNCEY, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) over time based on (stable permanent basis) differences (“by subtracting”, Lu, c.7,ll. 1-5, and “determined by comparing consecutive frames of the video input 102”, Lu, c.6,ll.40-45) between modeled locations (via “elliptical modeling…of…flow motion…position”, Lu, c.3,ll.54-57) of a complex control object.
Claim 20 is rejected/interpreted like claim 10:
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly (via said repeated control point specification) applying the determining and fitting a circle and fitting cross sections actions (see rejection claim 8) overtime77 (or exceeding a temporal threshold via a “motion”78 “threshold”, Lu, c. 7,ll. 18-20); and
calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of a complex control object.
Claims 9 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in the rejection of claim 6 further in view of ANDREEVICH et al. (SU 1375483 A1) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 7 further in view of further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in the rejection of claims 4 and 6:
PNG
media_image26.png
730
966
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Re 9., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee,ANDREEVICH teaches The system of claim 7, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying the determining and fitting a circle actions over time; and
calculating motion of the control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of the control object (see rejection of claim 6).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY, Yee, ANDREEVICH does not teach the difference of claim 9 of:
A) tracking motion … while making a gesture…
B) calculating motion of the control object over time based on differences between modeled locations.
Yee already teaches/makes obvious the difference A) of claim 10 in the rejection of claims 6 and 7 and 8:
A) tracking motion (via “motion module 204 tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part making79 the gesture” [0128] 2nd to last S)…(“tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part” [0128] 2nd to last S) while (contemporaneously) making a gesture.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY, Yee, ANDREEVICH does not teach the difference of claim 9 of:
B) calculating motion of the control object over time based on differences between modeled locations.
Lu already teaches/renders obvious last limitation B) in the rejection of claims 4 & 6:
Re 4., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches The system of claim 1, wherein a first (puzzle) fitted closed curve is used (illustrated above) to filter fits of additional (puzzle) closed curves (illustrated above).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY does not teach the difference of claim 4 of “filter fits”.
Lu teaches the difference of claim 4 of:
filter fits (or temporally filtering each ellipse-fit via “filter to smooth the changes of the ellipse over time”, c. 9,ll. 8-13: fig. 8: “Ellipse-fitted flow motion region 801”).
Since MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches recognition (MUNCEY, pg. 34, last txt blk), one of skill in the art of recognition can make MUNCEY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY be as Lu’s predictably recognizing the change “is further refined for increased accuracy, resulting in an identified flow motion region”, Lu, c.3,ll.15-20.
Re 6., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu teaches The system of claim 4, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY),
calculating observed edges (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu),
fitting closed curves (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY) and using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions over time (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu); and
calculating motion (“by subtracting the camera motion determined in step 302 from the block motion vectors 403 calculated in step 301”, Lu, c.7,ll.1-5) of a complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, MUNCEY, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) over time based on (stable permanent basis) differences (“by subtracting”, Lu, c.7,ll. 1-5, and “determined by comparing consecutive frames of the video input 102”, Lu, c.6,ll.40-45) between modeled locations (via “elliptical modeling…of…flow motion…position”, Lu, c.3,ll.54-57) of a complex control object.
Claim 19 is rejected like claim 9:
19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying the determining and fitting a circle actions over time; and
calculating motion of the control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of the control object.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in claim 4 further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation as applied in claims 22 and 2 and 12:
PNG
media_image27.png
730
966
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Re 14., MUNCEY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein a first fitted closed curve (illustrated above) is used to filter fits of additional closed curves (illustrated above) to contiguous8081 cross-sections.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY does not teach the difference of claim 4 of :
A) filter fits…
B) to contiguous cross-sections.
Lu teaches/makes obvious the difference A) of claim 14 in the rejection of claim 4:
Lu teaches the difference of claim 4 of:
filter fits (or temporally filtering each ellipse-fit via “filter to smooth the changes of the ellipse over time”, c. 9,ll. 8-13: fig. 8: “Ellipse-fitted flow motion region 801”).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Lu does not teach the last difference B) of claim 14:
B) to contiguous cross-sections.
DONNE teaches/makes obvious difference B) of claim 14 in the rejection of claim 22:
to contiguous cross-sections82 (of body-sensors 3,8 in close proximity not actually touching each other as seen in the illustrations in the rejection of claim 22).
Claims 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNCEY (WO 97/46975 A1) in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) as applied in claims 21 and 1 and 11 further in view of Lu et al. (US 7,660,439 B1) as applied in claim 4 further in view of “DONNE Eddy” (BE 1014643 A3) with Google Translate machine translation as applied in claims 22 and 2 and 12, further in view of Yee et al. (US 2010/0277411 A1) as applied in claims 6:
PNG
media_image28.png
730
966
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Re 16., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Lu,DONNE teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly (“specifies…with the placement of control points”, MUNCEY pg. 3, last txt blk) applying actions including obtaining captured images (“captured by computer video input device”, MUNCEY, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk),
calculating (via “mapping…edges”, MUNCEY, pg. 3, 3rd txt blk) observed edges,
fitting83 closed84 curves (“until the lines of the displayed cage provide a visually acceptable fit to the visible edges of the pictured box”, MUNCEY, pg. 7, last txt blk) and using85 a first86 fitted87 closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions (illustrated above) overtime88899091; and
calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of a complex control object (illustrated above).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY, Lu, DONNE does not teach the difference of claim 16:
A) tracking motion … while making a gesture …
B) using92 a first93 fitted94 closed curve to filter fits …
C) overtime959697…
D) calculating motion… over time based on differences between modeled locations.
Yee already teaches/makes obvious the difference A) of claim 16 in the rejection of claim 6:
Yee teaches the difference of claim 6:
tracking motion (via “motion module 204 tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part making98 the gesture” [0128] 2nd to last S)…
(“tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part” [0128] 2nd to last S) while (contemporaneously) making a gesture.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY, Lu, DONNE,Yee does not teach the remaining difference B) and C) and D) of claim 16:
B) using99 a first100 fitted101 closed curve to filter fits …
C) overtime102103104…
D) calculating motion… over time based on differences between modeled locations.
Lu of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY, Lu, DONNE,Yee already teaches/makes obvious the differences B) and D) of claim 16 in the rejection of claims 4 and 6:
Re 4., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches The system of claim 1, wherein a first (puzzle) fitted closed curve is used (illustrated above) to filter fits of additional (puzzle) closed curves (illustrated above).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY does not teach the difference of claim 4 of “filter fits”.
Lu teaches the difference of claim 4 of:
filter fits (or temporally filtering each ellipse-fit via “filter to smooth the changes of the ellipse over time”, c. 9,ll. 8-13: fig. 8: “Ellipse-fitted flow motion region 801”).
Since MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches recognition (MUNCEY, pg. 34, last txt blk), one of skill in the art of recognition can make MUNCEY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY be as Lu’s predictably recognizing the change “is further refined for increased accuracy, resulting in an identified flow motion region”, Lu, c.3,ll.15-20.
Re 6., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu teaches The system of claim 4, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY),
calculating observed edges (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu),
fitting closed curves (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY) and using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions over time (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu); and
calculating motion (“by subtracting the camera motion determined in step 302 from the block motion vectors 403 calculated in step 301”, Lu, c.7,ll.1-5) of a complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, MUNCEY, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) over time based on (stable permanent basis) differences (“by subtracting”, Lu, c.7,ll. 1-5, and “determined by comparing consecutive frames of the video input 102”, Lu, c.6,ll.40-45) between modeled locations (via “elliptical modeling…of…flow motion…position”, Lu, c.3,ll.54-57) of a complex control object.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY, Lu, DONNE,Yee does not teach the last difference C) of claim 16:
C) overtime105106107 …
Lu of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY, Lu, DONNE,Yee already teaches/makes obvious difference C) via the rejections of claim 20 referring back to the rejection of claim 10 referring back to the rejections of claims 4 and 6:
Claim 20 is rejected like claim 10:
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly (via said repeated control point specification) applying the determining and fitting a circle and fitting cross sections actions (see rejection claim 8) overtime108 (or exceeding a temporal threshold via a “motion”109 “threshold”, Lu, c. 7,ll. 18-20); and
calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of a complex control object.
Re 10., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH, “DONNE Eddy”,Lau teaches The system of claim 8, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly (via said repeated control point specification) applying the determining and fitting a circle and fitting cross sections actions (see rejection claim, 8) over time; and
calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of the complex control object.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH, “DONNE Eddy”,Lau does not teach the difference of claim 10 of:
A) tracking motion … while making a gesture …
B) calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of”.
Yee already teaches/makes obvious the difference A) of claim 10 in the rejection of claims 6 and 7 and 8:
A) tracking motion (via “motion module 204 tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part making110 the gesture” [0128] 2nd to last S)…(“tracks 808 movement of the at least one body part” [0128] 2nd to last S) while (contemporaneously) making a gesture.
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY,Yee, ANDREEVICH, “DONNE Eddy”,Lau does not teach the last difference of claim 10 of:
B) calculating motion of a complex control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of.
Lu already teaches/renders obvious last limitation B) in the rejection of claims 4 & 6:
Re 4., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches The system of claim 1, wherein a first (puzzle) fitted closed curve is used (illustrated above) to filter fits of additional (puzzle) closed curves (illustrated above).
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY does not teach the difference of claim 4 of “filter fits”.
Lu teaches the difference of claim 4 of:
filter fits (or temporally filtering each ellipse-fit via “filter to smooth the changes of the ellipse over time”, c. 9,ll. 8-13: fig. 8: “Ellipse-fitted flow motion region 801”).
Since MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches recognition (MUNCEY, pg. 34, last txt blk), one of skill in the art of recognition can make MUNCEY’s of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY be as Lu’s predictably recognizing the change “is further refined for increased accuracy, resulting in an identified flow motion region”, Lu, c.3,ll.15-20.
Re 6., MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu teaches The system of claim 4, wherein tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY),
calculating observed edges (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu),
fitting closed curves (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY) and using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions over time (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu); and
calculating motion (“by subtracting the camera motion determined in step 302 from the block motion vectors 403 calculated in step 301”, Lu, c.7,ll.1-5) of a complex control object (or a “handles” “constructed 3D object”, MUNCEY, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) over time based on (stable permanent basis) differences (“by subtracting”, Lu, c.7,ll. 1-5, and “determined by comparing consecutive frames of the video input 102”, Lu, c.6,ll.40-45) between modeled locations (via “elliptical modeling…of…flow motion…position”, Lu, c.3,ll.54-57) of a complex control object.
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Yhann (US 7,868,887 B1)
Yhann teaches “Equation 1 may also represent the family of conic sections: hyperbolae, parabolas, and ellipses.”, c. 10,ll. 30-35, as the closest to the claimed “family of similar closed curves” of claim 1.
Boury et al. (US 2014/0008436 A1)
Boury teaches “Indeed, a marker according to the invention is generated by choosing a shape of the contour for positioning the marker from a family of coplanar conics, and then by determining a fool-proofing element and inserting this fool-proofing element in the marker.” [0103] as the closest to the claimed “family of similar closed curves” of claim 1 & “co planar tangents” of claim 7.
STREICHER et al. (External Marker-Based Automatic Congruencing: A New Method of 3D Reconstruction From Serial Sections)
Streicher teaches, regarding the claimed appendage and cross section, “Three of the drill holes were used as external markers for automatic congruencing operations, whereas the fourth one served as a control object of known geometry.” (page 587, rcol, last para) and “If no reference structure of known shape is available, congruencing must be performed either subjectively, by an operator, or automatically, by a best-fit algorithm.” (page 584, lcol, 3rd para: middle) as the closest to the claimed “control object” and the “fit the observed edges” of claim 21.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 background: one's origin, education, experience, etc., in relation to one's present character, status, etc., wherein experience is defined: knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone, wherein practical is defined: of or relating to practice or action, wherein practice is defined: custom, wherein custom is defined: convention, wherein convention is defined: conventionalism, wherein conventionalism is defined: adherence to or advocacy of conventional attitudes or practices (Dictionary.com)
2 for: in order to become or enter, wherein become is defined: (copula) to come to be; develop or grow into, wherein develop is defined: to come or bring into existence; generate or be generated, wherein generate is defined: geometry to trace or form by moving a point, line, or plane in a specific way, wherein form is defined: to make, produce, or construct or be made, produced, or constructed (Dictionary.com)
3 correlate ADJECTIVE: having a mutual, complementary, or reciprocal relationship (Dictionary.com): i.e., finger-correlated-sections of a palm
4 See rejection claim 21 above regarding “for”: to construct
5 “repeat…a circle and fitting cross sections”, i.e., repeat a circle cross section and a fitting cross section
6 for: preposition: Grammar. any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns (“model”), pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases (“for a complex control object model that includes a palm and multiple fingers”) functioning as modifiers of verbs, nouns (“sections”), or adjectives, and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since. (Dictionary.com): “multiple finger”-“sections” “of a palm”.
7 This intended use in italics--for determining a gesture command from analysis of differences in positions of fit closed curves fit to observed edges of a control object to track motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space--does not serve to limit or redefine the remainer of claim 21 under the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 21: MPEP 2111.02 II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE, 2nd para, 1st S --During examination, statements in the preamble (“for determining a gesture command from analysis of differences in positions of fit closed curves fit to observed edges of a control object to track motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space”) reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference: There is no result of “determining a gesture” in claim 21) between the claimed invention and the prior art (thus there is no comparison to be made of the prior art regarding “determining a gesture”). If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.--.
8 moving: to have a regular motion, as an implement or a machine; turn; revolve, wherein regular is defined: rhythmical, wherein rhythmical is defined: a variant of rhythmic, wherein rhythmic is defined: of or relating to rhythm; showing a pattern of repeated sound or movement.
9 comma: the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, especially when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. (Dictionary.com)
10 include: to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor (Dictionary.com)
11 drag: computing to move (data) from one place to another on the screen by manipulating a mouse with its button held down, wherein mouse is defined: computing a hand-held device used to control the cursor movement and select computing functions without keying, wherein hand-held is defined: held in position by the hand, wherein hand is defined: the terminal, prehensile part of the upper limb in humans and other primates, consisting of the wrist, metacarpal area, fingers, and thumb, wherein limb is defined: One of the appendages of an animal, such as an arm of a starfish, the flipper of dolphins, or the arm and leg of a human, used for locomotion or grasping (Dictionary.com)
12comma: the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, especially when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. (Dictionary.com)
13 family: maths a group of curves or surfaces whose equations differ from a given equation only in the values assigned to one or more constants in each curve (Dictionary.com)
14 any: one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification. (Dictionary.com)
15 drag: computing to move (data) from one place to another on the screen by manipulating a mouse with its button held down, wherein mouse is defined: computing a hand-held device used to control the cursor movement and select computing functions without keying, wherein hand-held is defined: held in position by the hand, wherein hand is defined: the terminal, prehensile part of the upper limb in humans and other primates, consisting of the wrist, metacarpal area, fingers, and thumb, wherein limb is defined: One of the appendages of an animal, such as an arm of a starfish, the flipper of dolphins, or the arm and leg of a human, used for locomotion or grasping (Dictionary.com)
16 append: to fasten, join, or attach (usually followed byto ). (Dictionary.com)
17 drag: computing to move (data) from one place to another on the screen by manipulating a mouse with its button held down, wherein mouse is defined: computing a hand-held device used to control the cursor movement and select computing functions without keying, wherein hand-held is defined: held in position by the hand, wherein hand is defined: the terminal, prehensile part of the upper limb in humans and other primates, consisting of the wrist, metacarpal area, fingers, and thumb, wherein limb is defined: One of the appendages of an animal, such as an arm of a starfish, the flipper of dolphins, or the arm and leg of a human, used for locomotion or grasping (Dictionary.com)
18 thereto: to that place, thing, etc. (Dictionary.com)
19 What is the scope of “thereto”? Is the scope of “thereto” to the claim itself? Is the scope of “thereto” to the claim mapping? or both? I pick the scope of “thereto” to claim 21 itself and not to the claim mapping
20 family: maths a group of curves or surfaces whose equations differ from a given equation only in the values assigned to one or more constants in each curve (Dictionary.com)
21 family: maths a group of curves or surfaces whose equations differ from a given equation only in the values assigned to one or more constants in each curve (Dictionary.com)
22 shape: the quality of a distinct object or body in having an external surface or outline of specific form or figure, wherein outline is defined: the line by which a figure or object is defined or bounded; contour, wherein line is defined: Mathematics. a continuous extent of length, straight or curved, without breadth or thickness; the trace of a moving point. (Dictionary.com)
23 This intended use preamble language “for recognizing gestures from a control object moving in three dimensional (3D) space” does not serve to limit or redefine the remainder of system claim 1.
24 This intended use preamble language (for claim 6) “to analyze differences in positions of fit closed curves fit to observed edges of a control object to enable tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space” does not serve to limit or redefine the remainder of system claim 1.
25 handle: a part of a thing made specifically to be grasped or held by the hand. (Dictionary.com)
26 is: (used as a copula to connect the subject [“object”] with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative [“a hand”], in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject [“object”]), wherein describe is defined: to represent or delineate by a picture or figure. (Dictionary.com)
27 handle: hand. (Dictionary.com/Collins Dictionary), wherein hand is defined: (in American English) at sense 27. Also called: handle the fabric properties that can be sensed by touching the material, as resilience, smoothness, or body the smooth hand of satin (collinsdictionary.com): this definition sense 27 of “hand” (in a material (silk) property context) is not consistent with applicant’s disclosure.
28 -ing (of fitting): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs (fit), expressing the action (“to represent the complex control object”) of the verb (fit) or its result (not in claim 22), product (not in claim 22), material (not in claim 22), etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ). (Dictionary.com)
29 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association).
30touchpad: Computers. a computer input device for controlling the pointer on a display screen by sliding the finger along a touch-sensitive surface: used chiefly in laptop computers, wherein finger is defined: Technical name: digitus manus. any of the digits of the hand, often excluding the thumb, wherein hand is defined: the prehensile part of the body at the end of the arm, consisting of a thumb, four fingers, and a palm (Dictionary.com)
31 to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com)
32 to: (used for expressing agreement or accordance) according to; by. (Dictionary.com)
33 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association).
34 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association).
35touchpad: Computers. a computer input device for controlling the pointer on a display screen by sliding the finger along a touch-sensitive surface: used chiefly in laptop computers, wherein finger is defined: Technical name: digitus manus. any of the digits of the hand, often excluding the thumb, wherein hand is defined: the prehensile part of the body at the end of the arm, consisting of a thumb, four fingers, and a palm (Dictionary.com)
36to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com)
37 to: (used for expressing attachment or adherence). (Dictionary.com)
38 to: (used for expressing agreement or accordance) according to; by. (Dictionary.com)
39 show: to cause or allow to be seen; exhibit; display, wherein display is defined: to show or exhibit; make visible, wherein make is defined: to cause to be or become; render. (Dictionary.com)
40 cross section: 1) a section made by a plane cutting anything transversely, especially at right angles to the longest axis. 2) a piece so cut off. 3) a photograph, diagram, or other pictorial representation of such a section. (Dictionary.com)
41 for: with regard or respect to (Dictionary.com)
42 eigenvalue: maths physics one of the particular values of a certain parameter for which a differential equation or matrix equation has an eigenfunction. In wave mechanics an eigenvalue is equivalent to the energy of a quantum state of a system (Dictionary.com)
43 fit: something that fits. (Dictionary.com)
44 “wherein” is interpreted to refer to claim 4 “tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture in a 3D space further includes:” and not necessarily referring to similar language in claim 1’ preamble under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1,4,6.
45 determine: to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc., wherein conclude is defined: to bring to a decision or settlement; settle or arrange finally, wherein settlement is defined: the act of making stable or putting on a permanent basis, wherein make is defined: to establish or enact; put into existence, wherein establish is defined: to found (found is the identity of base), institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis, wherein found is defined: to base or ground (usually followed by on or upon ) (Dictionary.com)
46 compare: to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences. (Dictionary.com)
47 while: at the same time that (showing an analogous or corresponding action) (Dictionary.com)
48 “making” is a present particle participating with the action of “tracks 808” in the present tense, wherein present participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (make) used adjectivally when the action it describes is contemporaneous with that of the main verb (track) of a sentence and also used in the formation of certain compound tenses. In English this form ends in -ing Compare gerund, where contemporaneous is defined: contemporary, wherein contemporary is defined: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time. (Dictionary.com)
49 In real time: idioms in real time, at once; instantaneously (Dictionary.com)
50 determine: to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc., wherein conclude is defined: to bring to a decision or settlement; settle or arrange finally, wherein settlement is defined: the act of making stable or putting on a permanent basis, wherein make is defined: to establish or enact; put into existence, wherein establish is defined: to found (found is the identity of base), institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis, wherein found is defined: to base or ground (usually followed by on or upon ) (Dictionary.com)
51 compare: to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences. (Dictionary.com)
52 present-participle: Grammar.
a form derived from a verb, used in English as an adjective to express participation in the action (“tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture”) or state of the verb, or combined with an auxiliary verb to construct any of various tenses, as in a burning candle, a known fact, I am freezing, She has gone: a participle does not specify person or number, but may have a subject or object, show tense, etc. (Dictionary.com)
53 present-participle: Grammar.
a form derived from a verb, used in English as an adjective to express participation in the action (“tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture”) or state of the verb, or combined with an auxiliary verb to construct any of various tenses, as in a burning candle, a known fact, I am freezing, She has gone: a participle does not specify person or number, but may have a subject or object, show tense, etc. (Dictionary.com)
54 present-participle: Grammar.
a form derived from a verb, used in English as an adjective to express participation in the action or state of the verb, or combined with an auxiliary verb to construct any of various tenses, as in a burning candle, a known fact, I am freezing, She has gone: a participle does not specify person or number, but may have a subject or object, show tense, etc. (Dictionary.com)
55 present-participle: Grammar.
a form derived from a verb, used in English as an adjective to express participation in the action or state of the verb, or combined with an auxiliary verb to construct any of various tenses, as in a burning candle, a known fact, I am freezing, She has gone: a participle does not specify person or number, but may have a subject or object, show tense, etc. (Dictionary.com)
56 present-participle: i.e., action (see claim 8: actions”)
57 “making” is a present particle participating with the action of “tracks 808” in the present tense, wherein present participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (make) used adjectivally when the action it describes is contemporaneous with that of the main verb (track) of a sentence and also used in the formation of certain compound tenses. In English this form ends in -ing Compare gerund, where contemporaneous is defined: contemporary, wherein contemporary is defined: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time. (Dictionary.com)
58 co-: together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually (Dictionary.com)
59 planar: of or relating to a geometric plane. (Dictionary.com)
60 tangent: in immediate physical contact; touching. (Dictionary.com)
61 co-: together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually (Dictionary.com)
62 planar: of or relating to a geometric plane. (Dictionary.com)
63 tangent: in immediate physical contact; touching. (Dictionary.com)
64 CLAIM INTERPRETATON/PRIORITY: the “three co planar tangents” is not in PRO 61/724,091 11/08/2012; however, applicant’s drawings in PRO 61/724,091 11/08/2012 support “three co planar tangents” since I can see “three co planar tangents” in applicant’s drawings of PRO 61/724,091 11/08/2012: thus claim 7 is given the priority date of 11/08/2012.
65 graphic: giving a clear and effective picture; vivid. (Dictionary.com)
66 regarding “includes”: applicant’s disclosure:
[00146]The terms and expressions employed herein are used as terms and expressions of description and not of limitation, and there is no intention, in the use of such terms and expressions, of excluding any equivalents of the features shown and described or portions thereof. In addition, having described certain embodiments of the invention, it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that other embodiments incorporating the concepts disclosed herein may be used without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the described embodiments are to be considered in all respects as only illustrative and not restrictive.
67 includes: to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor (Dictionary.com)
68 See claim 7’s footnotes regarding present-participles contributing to tracking motion while making a gesture (i.e., “the…actions”)
69 “construct” an infinitive: in English, the simple or basic form of a verb, with no endings to indicate the verb’s subject or tense, such as come, take, eat, be: used after auxiliary verbs or preceded by the word to, and sometimes functioning as a noun, such as He must be, I want to eat, To love is to understand. (Dictionary.com)
70 drag: computing to move (data) from one place to another on the screen by manipulating a mouse with its button held down, wherein mouse is defined: computing a hand-held device used to control the cursor movement and select computing functions without keying, wherein hand-held is defined: held in position by the hand, wherein hand is defined: the terminal, prehensile part of the upper limb in humans and other primates, consisting of the wrist, metacarpal area, fingers, and thumb, wherein limb is defined: One of the appendages of an animal, such as an arm of a starfish, the flipper of dolphins, or the arm and leg of a human, used for locomotion or grasping (Dictionary.com)
71 This “the palm” (claim 8, last line) refers back to “[[[a palm]]]” in claim 8, last line and does not refer back to “{{{a palm}}}”, claim 8, line 3.
72 “making” is a present particle participating with the action of “tracks 808” in the present tense, wherein present participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (make) used adjectivally when the action it describes is contemporaneous with that of the main verb (track) of a sentence and also used in the formation of certain compound tenses. In English this form ends in -ing Compare gerund, where contemporaneous is defined: contemporary, wherein contemporary is defined: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time. (Dictionary.com)
73 outline:
1) the line by which a figure or object is defined or bounded; contour.
2) a drawing or sketch restricted to line without shading or modeling of form.
3)a general sketch, account, or report, indicating only the main features, as of a book, subject, or project.
4) a drawing or manner of drawing consisting only of external lines
(Dictionary.com)
74 least squares: a method for determining the best value of an unknown quantity relating one or more sets of observations or measurements, esp to find a curve that best fits a set of data. It states that the sum of the squares of the deviations of the experimentally determined value from its optimum value should be a minimum (Dictionary.com)
75 cross section: 1) a section made by a plane cutting anything transversely, especially at right angles to the longest axis. 2) a piece so cut off. 3) a photograph, diagram, or other pictorial representation of such a section. (Dictionary.com)
76 “making” is a present particle participating with the action of “tracks 808” in the present tense, wherein present participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (make) used adjectivally when the action it describes is contemporaneous with that of the main verb (track) of a sentence and also used in the formation of certain compound tenses. In English this form ends in -ing Compare gerund, where contemporaneous is defined: contemporary, wherein contemporary is defined: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time. (Dictionary.com)
77 See rejection of claim 16 regarding the word “overtime”, wherein overtime ADVERB is defined: during overtime, wherein overtime NOUN is defined: time in excess of a prescribed period. (Dictionary.com)
78 motion: the action or process of moving or of changing place or position; movement, wherein process is defined: a systematic series of actions directed to some end, wherein series is defined: a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence. (Dictionary.com)
79 “making” is a present particle participating with the action of “tracks 808” in the present tense, wherein present participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (make) used adjectivally when the action it describes is contemporaneous with that of the main verb (track) of a sentence and also used in the formation of certain compound tenses. In English this form ends in -ing Compare gerund, where contemporaneous is defined: contemporary, wherein contemporary is defined: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time. (Dictionary.com)
80 “contiguous” is not in applicant’s specification
81 CLAIM INTERPRETATION/PRIORITY: contiguous: in close proximity without actually touching; near. (Dictionary.com): I see this in applicant’s drawings of 13/414,485 03/07/2012: thus claim 14 is given the priority date of 3/07/2012.
82 cross section: a photograph, diagram, or other pictorial representation of such a section. (Dictionary.com)
83 i.e., fitting overtime?
84 i.e., closed overtime?
85 i.e., using overtime?
86 i.e., first overtime?
87 i.e, fitted overtime?
88 overtime ADVERB: of or for overtime, wherein overtime is defined: time in excess of a prescribed period, wherein ADVERB is defined: Grammar. any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs or clauses, and in some languages, as Latin and English, as modifiers of adjectives, other adverbs, or adverbial phrases, as very in very nice, much in much more impressive, and tomorrow in She'll write to you tomorrow. They relate to what they modify by indicating place (I promise to be there ), time (Do your homework now! ), manner (She sings beautifully ), circumstance (He accidentally dropped the glass when the bell rang), degree (I'm very happy to see you), or cause (I draw, although badly). . (Dictionary.com)
89 What is the claim scope of “overtime” under the broadest reasonable interpretation?
90 The word “overtime” suggests the phase “over time” (with a space) that is not claimed here; however, see next limitation that claims the phrase with a space between “over” & “time”: “over time based on differences”.
91 The word itself “overtime” is not in applicant’s specification
92 i.e., using overtime?
93 i.e., first overtime?
94 i.e, fitted overtime?
95 overtime ADVERB: of or for overtime, wherein overtime is defined: time in excess of a prescribed period, wherein ADVERB is defined: Grammar. any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs or clauses, and in some languages, as Latin and English, as modifiers of adjectives, other adverbs, or adverbial phrases, as very in very nice, much in much more impressive, and tomorrow in She'll write to you tomorrow. They relate to what they modify by indicating place (I promise to be there ), time (Do your homework now! ), manner (She sings beautifully ), circumstance (He accidentally dropped the glass when the bell rang), degree (I'm very happy to see you), or cause (I draw, although badly). . (Dictionary.com)
96 What is the claim scope of “overtime” under the broadest reasonable interpretation?
97 The word “overtime” suggests the phase “over time” (with a space) that is not claimed here; however, see next limitation that claims the phrase with a space between “over” & “time”: “over time based on differences”.
98 “making” is a present particle participating with the action of “tracks 808” in the present tense, wherein present participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (make) used adjectivally when the action it describes is contemporaneous with that of the main verb (track) of a sentence and also used in the formation of certain compound tenses. In English this form ends in -ing Compare gerund, where contemporaneous is defined: contemporary, wherein contemporary is defined: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time. (Dictionary.com)
99 i.e., using overtime?
100 i.e., first overtime?
101 i.e, fitted overtime?
102 overtime ADVERB: of or for overtime, wherein overtime is defined: time in excess of a prescribed period, wherein ADVERB is defined: Grammar. any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs or clauses, and in some languages, as Latin and English, as modifiers of adjectives, other adverbs, or adverbial phrases, as very in very nice, much in much more impressive, and tomorrow in She'll write to you tomorrow. They relate to what they modify by indicating place (I promise to be there ), time (Do your homework now! ), manner (She sings beautifully ), circumstance (He accidentally dropped the glass when the bell rang), degree (I'm very happy to see you), or cause (I draw, although badly). . (Dictionary.com)
103 What is the claim scope of “overtime” under the broadest reasonable interpretation?
104 The word “overtime” suggests the phase “over time” (with a space) that is not claimed here; however, see next limitation that claims the phrase with a space between “over” & “time”: “over time based on differences”.
105 overtime ADVERB: of or for overtime, wherein overtime is defined: time in excess of a prescribed period, wherein ADVERB is defined: Grammar. any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs or clauses, and in some languages, as Latin and English, as modifiers of adjectives, other adverbs, or adverbial phrases, as very in very nice, much in much more impressive, and tomorrow in She'll write to you tomorrow. They relate to what they modify by indicating place (I promise to be there ), time (Do your homework now! ), manner (She sings beautifully ), circumstance (He accidentally dropped the glass when the bell rang), degree (I'm very happy to see you), or cause (I draw, although badly). . (Dictionary.com)
106 What is the claim scope of “overtime” under the broadest reasonable interpretation?
107 The word “overtime” suggests the phase “over time” (with a space) that is not claimed here; however, see next limitation that claims the phrase with a space between “over” & “time”: “over time based on differences”.
108 See rejection of claim 16 regarding the word “overtime”, wherein overtime ADVERB is defined: during overtime, wherein overtime NOUN is defined: time in excess of a prescribed period. (Dictionary.com)
109 motion: the action or process of moving or of changing place or position; movement, wherein process is defined: a systematic series of actions directed to some end, wherein series is defined: a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence. (Dictionary.com)
110 “making” is a present particle participating with the action of “tracks 808” in the present tense, wherein present participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (make) used adjectivally when the action it describes is contemporaneous with that of the main verb (track) of a sentence and also used in the formation of certain compound tenses. In English this form ends in -ing Compare gerund, where contemporaneous is defined: contemporary, wherein contemporary is defined: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time. (Dictionary.com)
Prosecution Insights