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. 3