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.
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 II in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) with SEARCH machine translation II.
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:
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):
obtaining captured images…
determining
fitting closed curves to the observed edges…
selecting a closed curve from a family of similar closed curves…using an assumed parameter1…
using fitted closed curves:
21. (Currently Amended) A method for determining a gesture2 command3 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:
obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space;
determining
fitting4 closed curves to the observed edges of the control object, including control object appendages for multiple portions of any complex control objects, as captured5 in the captured images by selecting a closed curve from a family6 of similar closed curves that fit the observed edges of the control object as captured using an assumed parameter; and
constructing, using fitted closed curves,in 3D space from multiple portions of any complex control objects and one or more of control object appendages appended thereto.
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” & computer stuff) do not improve technology or a technical field or the function of a computer in view of applicant’s disclosure:
PNG
media_image1.png
1165
1125
media_image1.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” & computer stuff, considered individually or with the mental process & math adheres to conventional practices as indicated in applicant’s specification’s background7:
PNG
media_image2.png
1565
1121
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Suggestions
MPEP 2106.07(a) Formulating a Rejection For Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility [R-07.2022]
II. WHEN MAKING A REJECTION, EXPLAIN WHY THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM ELEMENTS DO NOT RESULT IN THE CLAIM AS A WHOLE INTEGRATING THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OR AMOUNTING TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION (STEP 2A PRONG TWO AND STEP 2B), last para:
In the event a rejection is made, it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification [0007] to determine if there are elements (“the light sources are arranged, for example, in a line or a plane such that the true intersection points are determined without identifying the actual locations thereof; this reduces the computational complexity, thereby increasing the processing speed8”) that could be added to the claim to make it eligible. If so, the examiner should identify those elements in the Office action and suggest them as a way to overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s disclosure:
[0007] Embodiments of the present invention relate to methods and systems for capturing motion and/or determining the shapes and positions of one or more objects in 3D space using at least one cross-section thereof; the cross-section(s) may be obtained from, for example, reflections from the object or shadows cast by the object. In various embodiments, the 3D reflections or shadows captured using a camera are first sliced into multiple two-dimensional (2D) cross-sectional images. The cross-sectional position and shape (or “intersection region”) of the 3D objects in each 2D slice may be determined based on the positions of one or more light sources used to illuminate the objects and the captured reflections or shadows. The 3D structure of the object may then be reconstructed by assembling a collection of the intersection regions obtained in the 2D slices. In some embodiments, the 2D intersection regions are identified based on “true” intersection points — i.e., points within the volume defined by the intersection of all light beams, which volume includes the object. These true intersection points may determined by the light sources and reflections or shadows — e.g., based on the number of reflection or shadow regions that they lie within or the locations of the geometric projection points calculated based on the positions of the light sources. In one embodiment, the light sources are arranged, for example, in a line or a plane such that the true intersection points are determined without identifying the actual locations thereof; this reduces the computational complexity, thereby increasing the processing speed. In some embodiments, the intersection region is split into a number of smaller intersection regions that can individually represent at least a portion of the reflections or shadows in the scene. Because determining each of the smaller intersection regions is computationally simpler than determining the entire intersection region, the processing time for obtaining the entire intersection region assembled from the individual smaller intersection regions is reduced (even if the smaller intersection regions are determined sequentially rather than in parallel). In various embodiments, the number of small split intersection regions that need to be identified is reduced by setting a criteria number U equal to the greatest number of intersection points in any intersection region; only regions or combinations of regions having a number of intersection points exceeding the criteria number U are further processed to identify the intersection regions therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 10, 3rd para: “computer vision using markerless 3D hand/control object tracking”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Step 2A
Mental Processes
Applicant’s state in page 11, penult para:
For example, the human mind is not equipped to (i) fit "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" or (ii) construct, "using fitted closed curves, a complex control object in 3D space from multiple portions of any complex control objects and one or more of control object appendages appended thereto."
The examiner respectfully disagrees since the claimed fit9 is/recites10 math or a single- or multiple-valued function.
The claimed “constructing”11 is an abstract idea or mental process comprising contriving, planning, elaborating, inventing from existing ideas.
Mathematical Formulas
The MPEP defines the mathematical concepts grouping as "mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1). It further notes that, "[w]hen determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept." Id The Office Action characterizes the claims as being directed to "math." However, although Claims 1-22 may include calculations and/or
determinations, they do not recite a mathematical concept.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since the claimed fit12 is/recites13 math or a single- or multiple-valued function. Thus the claimed “fit” is a calculation of a value according to14 or contingent on a single- or multiple-valued function based on data.
Step 2A – Prong Two
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 12, last para: “computer vision using markerless 3D hand/control object tracking”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 13, 2nd para: “computer vision using markerless 3D hand/control object tracking”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Step 2B
In response via the 35 USC 101 rejection:
“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” & computer stuff, considered individually or with the mental process & math adheres to conventional practices as indicated in applicant’s specification’s background”.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, page 13, filed 6/18/2026, with respect to double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting of US Patents:
9,070,019;
9,945,660;
10,767,982;
11,994,377
has been withdrawn.
Art Rejections of Claims 1,11, and 21
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 14, 4th para: “image-analysis operations…automatic repeated processing” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants state in page 15:
As noted, Muncey is directed to techniques for creating, modifying, and correlating 3D models with 2D pictures. In Muncey, the user interacts with a 2D image by placing or dragging control elements, such as the handles of a wireframe cage, onto corresponding points or edges in the image. The system then determines the position and orientation of the modeled 3D object and projects it onto the image plane. Therefore, at most, Muncey could be understood as addressing user-assisted 3D modelling from a static 2D image or placement of a pre-existing 3D model into a 2D scene. However, Muncey does not disclose, teach, or suggest a system for recognizing gestures from a control object moving in 3D space. Nor does Muncey disclose, teach, or suggest "repeatedly obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space," "determining observed edges of the control object from those captured images," and "fitting closed curves to the observed edges of the control object, including appendages or multiple portions of complex control objects."
In response, the claimed “for recognizing gestures” “is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” “to the structure and process of making” (claim 1s “constructing…a complex control object”) “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention” since the body of claim 1 “fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention” via MPEP 2111.02:
MPEP Effect of Preamble [R-07.2022] 2111.02
II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE, 1st para:
The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the preamble phrase "which provides improved playing and handling characteristics" in a claim drawn to a head for a lacrosse stick was not a claim limitation). Compare Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1333-34, 68 USPQ2d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (In a claim directed to a method of treating or preventing pernicious anemia in humans by administering a certain vitamin preparation to "a human in need thereof," the court held that the preamble is not merely a statement of effect that may or may not be desired or appreciated, but rather is a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method must be performed. Thus the claim is properly interpreted to mean that the vitamin preparation must be administered to a human with a recognized need to treat or prevent pernicious anemia.); Nantkwest , Inc. v. Lee, 686 Fed. App'x 864, 867 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential) (The court found that the preamble phrase "treating a cancer" "’require[s] lysis of many cells, in order to accomplish the goal of treating cancer’ and not merely lysing one or a few cancer cells."); In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1346-48, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1204-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (A claim at issue was directed to a method of preparing a food rich in glucosinolates wherein cruciferous sprouts are harvested prior to the 2-leaf stage. The court held that the preamble phrase "rich in glucosinolates" helps define the claimed invention, as evidenced by the specification and prosecution history, and thus is a limitation of the claim (although the claim was anticipated by prior art that produced sprouts inherently "rich in glucosinolates")).
During examination, statements in the preamble 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) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02.
However, a "preamble may provide context for claim construction, particularly, where … that preamble’s statement of intended use forms the basis for distinguishing the prior art in the patent’s prosecution history." Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1358-62, 71 USPQ2d 1081, 1084-87 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The patent claim at issue was directed to a two-step method for detecting a deficiency of vitamin B12 or folic acid, involving (i) assaying a body fluid for an "elevated level" of homocysteine, and (ii) "correlating" an "elevated" level with a vitamin deficiency. Id. at 1358-59, 71 USPQ2d at 1084. The court stated that the disputed claim term "correlating" can include comparing with either an unelevated level or elevated level, as opposed to only an elevated level because adding the "correlating" step in the claim during prosecution to overcome prior art tied the preamble directly to the "correlating" step. Id. at 1362, 71 USPQ2d at 1087. The recitation of the intended use of "detecting" a vitamin deficiency in the preamble rendered the claimed invention a method for "detecting," and, thus, was not limited to detecting "elevated" levels. Id.
See also Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785 ("[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.…Without such reliance, however, a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention." Consequently, "preamble language merely extolling benefits or features of the claimed invention does not limit the claim scope without clear reliance on those benefits or features as patentably significant."). In Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 1310, 72 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court stated that "a ‘[r]eview of the entirety of the ’047 patent reveals that the preamble language relating to ‘blown-film’ does not state a purpose or an intended use of the invention, but rather discloses a fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention that is properly construed as a limitation of the claim.’" Compare Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1294-96, 70 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that the preamble of a patent claim directed to a "hand-held punch pliers for simultaneously punching and connecting overlapping sheet metal" was not a limitation of the claim because (i) the body of the claim described a "structurally complete invention" without the preamble, and (ii) statements in prosecution history referring to "punching and connecting" function of invention did not constitute "clear reliance" on the preamble needed to make the preamble a limitation).
1. (Currently Amended) A system [[for recognizing gestures]]15 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:
obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space;
determining
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
constructing, using fitted closed curves, 3D space from multiple portions of any complex control objects and one or more of control object appendages appended thereto.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for recognizing gestures” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Thus Muncey discloses "repeatedly obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space," "determining observed edges of the control object from those captured images," and "fitting closed curves to the observed edges of the control object, including appendages or multiple portions of complex control objects."
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 15, 3rd para, 3rd S: “observed edges calculated”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Hindsight Analysis
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 17, 1st para, 2nd S: “markerless 3D tracking”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 II in view of TREMBLAY et al. (CA 2 479 564 C) with SEARCH machine translation.
PNG
media_image3.png
711
424
media_image3.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 space16,17 (likewise) including18 repeatedly (“specifies…with the placement of control points”, pg. 3, last txt blk):19
obtaining captured images (“captured by computer video input device”, pg. 34, 3rd txt blk) of a control (“point”, pg. 4, 1st txt blk) object moving20 (“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);
determining nd txt blk) 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, including control object appendages (comprised by a “three handle”-“dragging”21-“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), 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: fig. 4E: closed curve on x-y plane) from a family22 of similar closed (via “closed form solution for…a space circle”, pg. 10, 12th txt blk) curves (or likewise fig. 6A: two closed curves of a cylinder) 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, via:
PNG
media_image4.png
917
1126
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
957
1134
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
986
1033
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1528
949
media_image7.png
Greyscale
); and
constructing, using fitted closed curves,rd txt blk: or creating the complex bottle with square/diamond/circle handles in fig. 14A-D) in 3D space (or likewise “in 3D space”, machine translation II, pg. 6, 2nd txt blk) from multiple (bottle) portions of 23 complex control objects (said complex-bottle) 2425 26-“user” (limbs), pg. 23, 6th txt blk) 27 (or limb-button held down comprised by a “three handle”-“dragging”28-“user”(limb), pg. 23, 6th txt blk) 29 (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 via figs. 13A,B:
PNG
media_image7.png
1528
949
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
1599
907
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
1586
926
media_image9.png
Greyscale
).
MUNCEY does not teach the difference of claim 1 of:
from a family30
TREMBLAY teaches the difference of claim 21:
from a (“particular shape”, pg. 21) family31 (or likewise “of a particular shape family”, machine translation II, pg. 46, 1st txt blk).
Since MUNCEY teaches fitting and user interfaces are known via text block spanning pages 33,34:
“4 1 Tools and Modes Overview
The specific implementation of the invention, a program referred to as FreeD, offers two sorts of functionality, namely the construction of 3D models from 2D images
and the manipulation of the 3D models. Operations are effected by the user invoking tools. Some of the tools are invoked by clicking in a tool bar while some are invoked by making a selection from a list of menu options . These are but two of many known user interface techniques for allowing a user to specify operations”
, one of skill in the art could or would have done is refer to others for the known user interface of fitting and thus can make MUNCEY’s be as TREMBLAY’s predictably recognizing the change enhancing (puzzle/bottle) shapes “with more precise or aesthetic strokes or shapes (106) using the sketch enhancement module 14.”, TREMBLAY, pg. 17, last txt blk, via “explicit…Supreme Court…creative…or even routine steps”32, A,B,C,D :
A) create program based on TREMBLAY’s figures 8,10:
A1) make code connecting the programs of figures 8,10
A2) save code to floppy-disk:
PNG
media_image10.png
1072
903
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
789
870
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
1859
903
media_image12.png
Greyscale
B) install program into MUNCEY’s RAM: fig. 1:32 via said floppy disk 47 sketch program:
PNG
media_image13.png
836
1037
media_image13.png
Greyscale
C) run MUNCEY’s user menu interface program of figures 16A,16B,16C:
C1) at fig. 16C: 410: “Execute tool” create code calling said TREMBLAY’s installed disk sketch program
C1.1): sketch a cylinder using TREMBLAY’s sketch program and return to said fig. 16C:410 using said enhanced cylinder:
PNG
media_image14.png
1127
947
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
1516
988
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
1577
971
media_image16.png
Greyscale
D) see what happens (I foresee enhancing (puzzle/bottle) shapes “with more precise or aesthetic strokes or shapes (106) using the sketch enhancement module 14).
Claim 1 is rejected like claim 21:
1. (Currently Amended) A system for recognizing gestures from a control object moving in three dimensional (3D) space33, 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:3435
obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space;
determining
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
constructing, using fitted closed curves, in 3D space from multiple portions of
Claim 11 is rejected like claims 21 and 1:
11. (Currently Amended) 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:36
obtaining captured images of a control object moving in 3D space;
determining
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
constructing, using fitted closed curves, in 3D space from multiple portions of .
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_image17.png
731
578
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
1567
1116
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Re 22. (Original), 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 handles37 in fig. 14A-D) is38 a hand (closest mapping is a handle39: fig. 14A: handle is not a hand consistent with applicant’s disclosure), and further comprising:
PNG
media_image19.png
685
562
media_image19.png
Greyscale
fitting40 (“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) of41 a palm (via “touchpad”42) to4344 observed (“outline”, pg. 38, 5th txt blk) edges of45 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) of46 multiple (four) fingers (via “touchpad”47) to484950 (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 shows51…a hand”)…
cross sections52 (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_image20.png
1451
826
media_image20.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_image21.png
1294
889
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected like claim 22:
2. (Original) 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. (Original) 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_image22.png
731
578
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Re 3. (Original), 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 for53 (closest mapping to “eigenvectors54 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. (Original) 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_image23.png
731
578
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Re 4. (Original), MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY teaches The system of claim 1, filter fits55 of additional (puzzle) 56 (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_image24.png
731
593
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Re 6. (Currently Amended), MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu teaches The system of claim 4, wherein5758 tracking5960 motion of the control object while making a gesture6162 in a 3D space further includes:
repeatedly applying actions including obtaining captured images (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY),
63 64 (via the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY,TREMBLAY, Lu); and
determining rd 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 “determined65 by comparing66 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, under “a narrow subset of claim scope”67, the difference of claim 4 of:
“tracking motion…while68 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 making69 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 time70”, Yee, [0065], quickly updating an interactive display:
PNG
media_image25.png
566
1027
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected like claim 6:
15. (Currently Amended) 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, determining
determining .
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_image26.png
731
593
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected/interpreted like claim 6:
5. (Currently Amended) 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 motion of the control object over time based on differences between modeled locations of the 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_image27.png
731
699
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected like claim 5 which is rejected like claim 6:
Re 7. (Currently Amended) , 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 includes71:
determining72 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, including73:
determining three coplanar tangents to observed edges of the control object from the captured images; and
fitting74 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 making75 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 co76 planar77 tangents78…
C) using at least the three co planar tangents”.
ANDREEVICH teaches the difference B) & C) of claim 7:
B) (I can see) three co79 planar80 tangents8182 (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_image28.png
1022
1139
media_image28.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 graphic83 drawings of giving a clear and effective picture; vivid:
PNG
media_image29.png
1511
811
media_image29.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:
determining 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_image30.png
731
911
media_image30.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected like claims 6,7,22:
Re 8. (Original), 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 includes8485 {{{a palm}}} and multiple fingers (via said mouse button dragging), applying the determining and fitting a circle actions86 (see rejection claim 7: pyramid/bottle drawing) to construct87 multiple fingers of control object appendages (comprised by a “three handle”-“dragging”88-“user” (limbs), MUNCEY, pg. 23, 6th txt blk); and
fitting cross sections of [[[a palm]]] to observed edges of the palm89 (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 making90 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”91 (page 8, reproduced below) predictably recognizing the change results in the best value-fit sketch via “a least-squares92 algorithm”, Lau [0079], 2nd S.
PNG
media_image31.png
1507
1015
media_image31.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image32.png
1511
811
media_image32.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 sections93 (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_image20.png
1451
826
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected/interpreted like claim 8:
18. (Original) 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_image33.png
730
964
media_image33.png
Greyscale
Re 10. (Currently Amended), 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
determining 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 making94 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:
Claim 20 is rejected/interpreted like claim 10:
20. (Currently Amended) 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) over time 95 “threshold”, Lu, c. 7,ll. 18-20); and
determining 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_image34.png
730
966
media_image34.png
Greyscale
Re 9. (Currently Amended), 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
determing 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 making96 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:
Claim 19 is rejected like claim 9:
19. (Currently Amended) 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
determining 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_image35.png
730
966
media_image35.png
Greyscale
Re 14. (Currently Amended), 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 contiguous9798 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-sections99 (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_image36.png
730
966
media_image36.png
Greyscale
Re 16. (Currently Amended), 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), determining rd txt blk) observed edges,
fitting100 closed101 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 using102 a first103 fitted104 closed curve to filter fits of additional closed curves actions (illustrated above) over time
determining 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) using105 a first106 fitted107 closed curve to filter fits …
C) overtime108109110…
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 making111 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) using a first fitted closed curve to filter fits …
C) over time
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:
MUNCEY of the combination (illustrated above) of MUNCEY, TREMBLAY, Lu, DONNE,Yee does not teach the last difference C) of claim 16:
C) over time
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) overtime112 (or exceeding a temporal threshold via a “motion”113 “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 making114 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
IDS (2/23/2026) cited Wu et al. (Hand modeling, analysis and recognition)
Wu teaches, as of May 2001, fitting model-shapes to a hand is difficult due to too much data, pg. 55, lcol, last S & fig. 4:
PNG
media_image37.png
832
1157
media_image37.png
Greyscale
“Some examples are shown in Fig. 4, in which the parameters of a cardboard hand model115 are adjusted to match three input images. Generally, due to the huge search space of hand articulation, the optimization involved is difficult and computationally intensive.”
as the closest to the claimed “fitting closed curves to the observed edge of the control object” of claim 1 and
as the closest to applicant’s disclosure [00118] of “the computational load may be increased by several orders of magnitude due to the additional complexity”.
IDS (5/14/2024) cited Luck et al. (US 7,257,237)
Luck teaches a “visual hull”, c.15,ll.5-20:
PNG
media_image38.png
871
806
media_image38.png
Greyscale
The method is able to produce 3D data quickly enough for real-time implementation, however the method produces a visual hull, which is not an exact representation of the volume occupied by a subject FIG. 3. As the cameras (81-83) view an object (80) from outside of the object, there is no placement of these three cameras that will discern concavities (84). Additionally tailing points (86) and (87), which are not in view of any of the cameras, will be included in the visual hull. The more cameras that are employed, the more accurate the volumetric data will be in representing the actual subject. In the example embodiment, four cameras were used but it is anticipated that any number of cameras greater than one could be used.
as the closest to applicant’s disclosure ([00109], last S) of “ ‘visual hulls’ 1722,1724,1726,1728”:
PNG
media_image39.png
606
570
media_image39.png
Greyscale
Senthamil (ACCURATE TRACKING OF OBJECTS USING LEVEL SETS)
Senthamil teaches a closed tracking curve for “gesture recognition”, page 1, 1st para, 5th S via page 9, 3.1.2 Strength Image Computation, 2nd para, 2nd S and page 10, last S and page 12: 3.2 Contour Framework, 1st S:
“Let the closed curve bounding the target be represented as Γ at time t….to estimate the contour…In an active contour framework, segmentation or tracking of an object is achieved by evolving a closed contour to the object boundary, such that the contour tightly encloses the object region.”
PNG
media_image40.png
1018
771
media_image40.png
Greyscale
as the closest to the claimed “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” of claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 parameter: Mathematics. a constant or variable term in a function that determines the specific form of the function but not its general nature, as a in f (x ) = ax, where a determines only the slope of the line described by f (x ). (Dictionary.com)
2 gesture: a movement or position of the hand, arm, body, head, or face that is expressive of an idea, opinion, emotion, etc.. (Dictionary.com)
3 command: Computers. an electric impulse, signal, or set of signals for initiating an operation in a computer. (Dictionary.com)
4 fit: Statistics. to predict, calculate, or project (values) according to a model based on existing data. (Dictionary.com)
5 capture: Computers. a. to enter (data) into a computer for processing or storage. (Dictionary.com)
6 family: Mathematics. a. a given class of solutions of the same basic equation, differing from one another only by the different values assigned to the constants in the equation. (Dictionary.com)
7 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)
8 MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]
I. THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT
A. Relevant Considerations For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept, 2nd para: Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:…
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
9 fit VERB: Statistics. to predict, calculate, or project (values) according to a model based on existing data. wherein model is defined: a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon, often mathematically, wherein representation is defined: the expression or designation by some term, character, symbol, or the like, wherein expression is defined: Mathematics. a symbol or a combination of symbols representing a value, relation, or the like, wherein relation is defined: Mathematics.
a. a property that associates two quantities in a definite order, as equality or inequality.
b. a single- or multiple-valued function. (Dictionary.com)
10 recite: to give an account of., wherein account is defined: an oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative, wherein description is defined: a statement, picture in words, or account that describes; descriptive representation, wherein describe is defined: to indicate; be a sign of; denote, wherein denote is defined: to be a name or designation for; mean, wherein mean is defined: to have as its sense or signification; signify, wherein sense is defined: the meaning of a word or phrase in a specific context, especially as isolated in a dictionary or glossary; the semantic element in a word or group of words. (Dictionary.com) . .
11 constructing: to build or form by putting together parts; frame; devise, wherein devise is defined: to contrive, plan, or elaborate; invent from existing principles or ideas. (Dictionary.com)
12 fit VERB: Statistics. to predict, calculate, or project (values) according to a model based on existing data. wherein model is defined: a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon, often mathematically, wherein representation is defined: the expression or designation by some term, character, symbol, or the like, wherein expression is defined: Mathematics. a symbol or a combination of symbols representing a value, relation, or the like, wherein relation is defined: Mathematics.
a. a property that associates two quantities in a definite order, as equality or inequality.
b. a single- or multiple-valued function. (Dictionary.com)
13 recite: to give an account of., wherein account is defined: an oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative, wherein description is defined: a statement, picture in words, or account that describes; descriptive representation, wherein describe is defined: to indicate; be a sign of; denote, wherein denote is defined: to be a name or designation for; mean, wherein mean is defined: to have as its sense or signification; signify, wherein sense is defined: the meaning of a word or phrase in a specific context, especially as isolated in a dictionary or glossary; the semantic element in a word or group of words. (Dictionary.com) . .
14 according to: contingent on (Dictionary.com)
15 Regrading the preamble’s “for recognizing gestures”, “a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention” MPEP 2111.02 II, last para, 1st S.
16 This intended use in italics-- 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.--.
17 comma “,” is interpreted as deletion [[,]]
18 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE:”-ing” (of including VERB): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionary.com)
19 Claim 21, lines 1-3 is the preamble: a similar analysis applies to claims 1 and 11.
20 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.
21 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)
22 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)
23 any: one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification. (Dictionary.com)
24 and: (used to connect alternatives).
25 The crossed text “does not limit the scope” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024],3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“any complex control objects and one or more of control object appendages appended thereto”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
26 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)
27 append: to fasten, join, or attach (usually followed byto ). (Dictionary.com)
28 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)
29 BROAD CLAIM LANGAUGE: thereto: to that place, thing, etc. (Dictionary.com)
30 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)
31 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)
32 MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024], 3rd para: "[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of ‘the inferences and creative steps,’ or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877.
33 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.
34 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.
35 Claim 1, lines 1-6 is the preamble: a similar analysis applies to claims 21 and 11.
36 Claim 11, lines 1-5 is the preamble: a similar analysis applied to claims 1 and 21
37 handle: a part of a thing made specifically to be grasped or held by the hand. (Dictionary.com)
38 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)
39 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.
40 -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)
41 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association).
42touchpad: 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)
43 to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com)
44 to: (used for expressing agreement or accordance) according to; by. (Dictionary.com)
45 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association).
46 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association).
47touchpad: 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)
48to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com)
49 to: (used for expressing attachment or adherence). (Dictionary.com)
50 to: (used for expressing agreement or accordance) according to; by. (Dictionary.com)
51 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)
52 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)
53 for: with regard or respect to (Dictionary.com)
54 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)
55 fit: something that fits. (Dictionary.com)
56 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim” via:
MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY” :
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
57 wherein: in what or in which, wherein which is defined: (used relatively in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses to represent a specified antecedent [i.e., claim 1, line 6’s:“to enable tracking motion of the control object while making a gesture”]). (Dictionary.com)
58 “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.
59 tracking: to follow (a track, course, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
60 The preamble’s “tracking” is not apparent in the remainder of claims 1,4,6 and thus not a limitation.
61 gesture: a movement or position of the hand, arm, body, head, or face that is expressive of an idea, opinion, emotion, etc..(Dictionary.com)
62 The preamble’s “gesture” is not apparent in the remainder of claims 1,4,6 and thus not a limitation.
63 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
64 The crossed text “does not limit the scope” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024],3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“any complex control objects and one or more of control object appendages appended thereto”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
65 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)
66 compare: to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences. (Dictionary.com)
67 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
68 while: at the same time that (showing an analogous or corresponding action) (Dictionary.com)
69 “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)
70 In real time: idioms in real time, at once; instantaneously (Dictionary.com)
71 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)
72 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)
73 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)
74 present-participle: i.e., action (see claim 8: actions”)
75 “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)
76 co-: together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually (Dictionary.com)
77 planar: of or relating to a geometric plane. (Dictionary.com)
78 tangent: in immediate physical contact; touching. (Dictionary.com)
79 co-: together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually (Dictionary.com)
80 planar: of or relating to a geometric plane. (Dictionary.com)
81 tangent: in immediate physical contact; touching. (Dictionary.com)
82 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.
83 graphic: giving a clear and effective picture; vivid. (Dictionary.com)
84 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.
85 includes: to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor (Dictionary.com)
86 See claim 7’s footnotes regarding present-participles contributing to tracking motion while making a gesture (i.e., “the…actions”)
87 “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)
88 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)
89 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.
90 “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)
91 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)
92 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)
93 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)
94 “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)
95 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)
96 “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)
97 “contiguous” is not in applicant’s specification
98 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.
99 cross section: a photograph, diagram, or other pictorial representation of such a section. (Dictionary.com)
100 i.e., fitting overtime?
101 i.e., closed overtime?
102 i.e., using overtime?
103 i.e., first overtime?
104 i.e, fitted overtime?
105 i.e., using overtime?
106 i.e., first overtime?
107 i.e, fitted overtime?
108 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)
109 What is the claim scope of “overtime” under the broadest reasonable interpretation?
110 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”.
111 “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)
112 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)
113 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)
114 “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)
115 model: a pattern or mode of structure or formation, wherein patten is defined: a distinctive style, model, or form, wherein form is defined: the shape of a thing or person. (Dictionary.com)
Prosecution Insights