Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-12,14-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarkson (2013/0211843) hereinafter, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere et al (2022/0308675) hereinafter, Lafreniere.
In regards to claim 1, Clarkson teaches obtaining first hand tracking data for a first hand based on sensor data, wherein the first hand tracking data corresponds to a first instance of a gesture, (fig. 1 110)),(for example in fig. 4 tracking of hand and the open palm engagement is a first instance of a swipe gesture)
Methods, apparatuses, systems, and computer-readable media for performing engagement-dependent gesture recognition are presented. According to one or more aspects, a computing device may detect an engagement of a plurality of engagements, and each engagement of the plurality of engagements may define a gesture interpretation context of a plurality of gesture interpretation contexts. Subsequently, the computing device may detect a gesture. Then, the computing device may execute at least one command based on the detected gesture and the gesture interpretation context defined by the detected engagement. In some arrangements, the engagement may be an engagement pose, such as a hand pose, while in other arrangements, the detected engagement may be an audio engagement, such as a particular word or phrase spoken by a user.(abstract)
determining, based on the first hand tracking data, that the first hand is in a first state (fig. 2 (full detection mode)) of a plurality of states (fig 2 limited detection mode and full detection mode are the plural states and based on the engagement input detected, or the open palm in fig. 4, whether to input the gesture that is detected), [0030-0032] (fig. 2 limited detection and full detection) (fig. 3 315 Y and N), and
([0029] (fig. 3 (330) threshold amount of time),
[0030] FIG. 2 illustrates an example timeline showing how a computing device may switch from a limited detection mode into a full detection mode in response to detecting an engagement input in accordance with one or more illustrative aspects of the disclosure. As seen in FIG. 2, at a start time 205, a computing device, such as device 100, may be in a limited detection mode. In the limited detection mode, the device processes sensor data to detect an engagement input. However, in this mode, the device may not execute commands associated with user inputs available for controlling the device in the full detection mode. In other words, only engagement inputs are valid in the limited detection mode in some embodiments.
Clarkson fails to expressly teach wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters. (See Applicant’s Remarks filed 6/15/2026).
However, Lafreniere teaches wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters.[0026, 0029, 0049-0053,] parameter/adjustable threshold, or other words the state of the hands (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere)
[0026] Based at least on the context in which the gesture was performed, a threshold for determining whether to trigger the response to the gesture may be adjusted. Referring to the above examples, for example, the degree of multitasking and/or the degree of time pressure may adjust a threshold for determining a recognition of the gesture and its associated response. Triggering the response may then cause the computing system to perform an action that is based on the detected gesture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Clarkson to provide wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters as taught by Lafreniere in order to reduce misinterpretations [0022].
Therefore, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches
detecting, based on the determination that the first hand is in the first state(fig. 2 (full detection mode) Clarkson), a first input gesture by the first hand based on the hand tracking data (fig. 4 (415 swipe right gesture)) and using the first gesture detection parameters; and([0029] (fig. 3 (330) threshold amount of time) Clarkson
[0036] Continuing to refer to FIG. 2, once the computing device has entered the full detection mode, the computing device may detect one or more gestures. In response to detecting a particular gesture, the device may interpret the gesture based on the gesture interpretation context corresponding to the most recent engagement input. The recognizable gestures in the active gesture interpretation context may each be associated with a command. In this way, when any one of the gestures is detected as input, the device determines the command with which the gesture is associated, and executes the determined command. In some embodiments, the most recent engagement input may not only determine which commands are associated with which gestures, but the engagement input may be used to determine one or more parameters used to detect one or more of those gestures. Clarkson
PNG
media_image1.png
688
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
562
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in response to determining, based on additional hand tracking data received after the first hand tracking data, that the first hand is in a second state (fig. 3 starting over or after the time out in 330, a new input at 310 Clarkson),
determining that a second instance of the gesture fails to indicate the first input gesture based on second gesture detection parameters [0026, 0029, 0049-0053,] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere) corresponding to the second state (fig. 4 (405 swipe right) will be ignored because there is no engagement gesture) Clarkson
In regards to claim 8, In regards to claim 1, Clarkson a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable executable by one ore more processors to: (fig. 1 110)),
obtain first hand tracking data for a first hand based on sensor data, wherein the first hand tracking data corresponds to a first instance of a gesture, (fig. 1 110)),(for example in fig. 4 tracking of hand and the open palm engagement is a first instance of a swipe gesture)
determine, based on the first hand tracking data, that the first hand is in a first state (fig. 2 (full detection mode)) of a plurality of states (fig 2 limited detection mode and full detection mode are the plural states and based on the engagement input detected, or the open palm in fig. 4, whether to input the gesture that is detected), [0030-0032] (fig. 2 limited detection and full detection) (fig. 3 315 Y and N), and
([0029] (fig. 3 (330) threshold amount of time),
Clarkson fails to expressly teach wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters. (See Applicant’s Remarks filed 6/15/2026).
However, Lafreniere teaches wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters.[0026, 0029, 0049-0053,] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Clarkson to provide wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters as taught by Lafreniere in order to reduce misinterpretations [0022].
Therefore, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches
detect, based on the determination that the first hand is in the first state(fig. 2 (full detection mode) Clarkson), a first input gesture by the first hand based on the hand tracking data (fig. 4 (415 swipe right gesture)) and using the first gesture detection parameters; and([0029] (fig. 3 (330) threshold amount of time) Clarkson
in response to determining, based on additional hand tracking data received after the first hand tracking data, that the first hand is in a second state (fig. 3 starting over or after the time out in 330, a new input at 310 Clarkson),
determine that a second instance of the gesture fails to indicate the first input gesture based on second gesture detection parameters [0026, 0029, 0049-0053,] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere) corresponding to the second state (fig. 4 (405 swipe right) will be ignored because there is no engagement gesture) Clarkson
In regards to claim 15, Clarkson teaches system comprising: one or more processors (abstract); and one or more computer readable media comprising computer readable code executable by the one or more processors to (fig. 5 (510]) obtain hand tracking data for a first hand based on sensor data (fig. 1 (110)): readable medium comprising computer readable executable by one ore more processors to: (fig. 5 (510 and 535))),
obtain first hand tracking data for a first hand based on sensor data, wherein the first hand tracking data corresponds to a first instance of a gesture, (fig. 1 110)),(for example in fig. 4 tracking of hand and the open palm engagement is a first instance of a swipe gesture)
determine, based on the first hand tracking data, that the first hand is in a first state (fig. 2 (full detection mode)) of a plurality of states (fig 2 limited detection mode and full detection mode are the plural states and based on the engagement input detected, or the open palm in fig. 4, whether to input the gesture that is detected), [0030-0032] (fig. 2 limited detection and full detection) (fig. 3 315 Y and N), and
([0029] (fig. 3 (330) threshold amount of time),
Clarkson fails to expressly teach wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters. (See Applicant’s Remarks filed 6/15/2026).
However, Lafreniere teaches wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters.[0026, 0029, 0049-0053,] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Clarkson to provide wherein the first state, associated with first gesture detection parameters as taught by Lafreniere in order to reduce misinterpretations [0022].
Therefore, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches
detect, based on the determination that the first hand is in the first state(fig. 2 (full detection mode) Clarkson), a first input gesture by the first hand based on the hand tracking data (fig. 4 (415 swipe right gesture)) and using the first gesture detection parameters; and([0029] (fig. 3 (330) threshold amount of time) Clarkson
in response to determining, based on additional hand tracking data received after the first hand tracking data, that the first hand is in a second state (fig. 3 starting over or after the time out in 330, a new input at 310 Clarkson),
determine that a second instance of the gesture fails to indicate the first input gesture based on second gesture detection parameters [0026, 0029, 0049-0053,] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere) corresponding to the second state (fig. 4 (405 swipe right) will be ignored because there is no engagement gesture) Clarkson
In regards to claim 2, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches to teach wherein a probability that the hand tracking data causes the input action to be initiated in the active state is greater than a probability that the hand tracking data causes the input action to be initiate in the second state (fig. 3 (315 yes) Clarkson in view of [0089-0095 Lafreniere..
In regards to claim 3, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, while the first hand is in the active state: determining that an inactive criterion is satisfied; and in accordance with a determination that the inactive criterion is satisfied, determining that the first hand is in an second state.(fig. 2 limited and full) Clarkson in view of fig. 7 (714-736)) Lafreniere.
In regards to claim 4 Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the inactive criterion comprises a timeout (fig. 3 (330) Clarkson and fig. 7 (726) Lafreniere.
In regards to claim 5, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere method of claim 3, teaches further comprising: transitioning the first hand from the second state to the active state in response to initiating the input action associated with the first input gesture based on the second gesture detection parameters (fig. 3 (305-340) Clarkson in view of .[0026, 0029, 0049-0053,] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere).
In regards to claim 6, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches method of claim 1, further comprising, while the first hand is in the second state: determining that an active criterion is satisfied; and in accordance with a determination that the active criterion is satisfied, determining that the first hand is in the active state (fig. 3 340 to 320) Clarkson in view of [0026, 0029, ,] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere) and transition when moving threshold is met.
In regards to claim 9, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein a probability that the hand tracking data causes the input action to be initiated in the active state is greater than a probability that the hand tracking data causes the input action to be initiate in the second state. (fig. 2 limited and full) Clarkson in view of fig. 7 (714-736)) Lafreniere.
In regards to claim 10, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further comprising computer readable code to, while the first hand is in the active state: determining that an inactive criterion is satisfied; and in accordance with a determination that the inactive criterion is satisfied, determining that the first hand is in an second state (fig. 2 limited and full) Clarkson in view of fig. 7 (714-736)) Lafreniere.
In regards to claim 11, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, further comprising computer readable code to: transition the first hand from the second state to the active state in response to initiating an input action based on the second set of parameters (fig. 2 limited looking for imitation) Clarkson parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere)
In regards to claim 12, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further comprising computer readable code to, while the first hand is in the second state: determine that an active criterion is satisfied; and in accordance with a determination that the active criterion is satisfied, determine that the first hand is in the active state (fig. 3 340 to 320) Clarkson in view of [0026, 0029] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere) and transition when moving threshold is met.
In regards to claim 14, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the first input gesture is performed by the first hand and a second hand, and wherein initiating the input action comprises transitioning the second hand to the active state. (fig. 3 340 to 320 [0029] “hands”) Clarkson in view of parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere).
In regards to claim 16, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches system of claim 15, further comprising computer readable code to, wherein a probability that the hand tracking data causes the input action to be initiated in the active state is greater than a probability that the hand tracking data causes the input action to be initiate in the second state. (fig. 3 (315 yes) Clarkson in view of [0089-0095] Lafreniere.
In regards to claim 17, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches system of claim 16, wherein comprises a timeout causes the input action to be initiate in the second state. (fig. 3 (330) Clarkson and fig. 7 (726) Lafreniere.
In regards to claim 18, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches system of claim 16, further comprising computer readable code to: transition the first hand from the second state to the active state in response to initiating an input action based on the second set of parameters. (fig. 3 (305-340) Clarkson in view of .[0026, 0029, 0049-0053,] parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere)
In regards to claim 20, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches system of claim 15, wherein the first input gesture is performed by the first hand and a second hand, and wherein initiating the input action comprises transitioning the second hand to the active state. (fig. 3 340 to 320 [0029] “hands”) Clarkson in view of parameter/adjustable threshold (fig. 7 (700) and fig. 8 (810-830) Lafreniere).
In regards to claim 21, Clarkson in view of Lafreniere teaches method of claim 1, wherein the first state comprises an active state, and wherein the second state comprises an inactive state (fig. 2 (limited detection and full detection) Examiner notes the limited state is an inactive state in that it is looking for an engagement input and not an input gesture)Clarkson in view of [0022-0026 and 0079] Lafreniere.
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarkson and Lafreniere in view of Poupyrev (2020/0150776) hereinafter, Poupyrev.
In regards to claim 7, Clarkson and Lafreniere fails to teach (Original) the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining hand tracking data for a second hand based on the sensor data; detecting a second input gesture by the second hand based on the hand tracking data; determining whether the second hand is in an active state; and in accordance with a determination that the first hand is not in the active state, disregarding the second input gesture while performing the input action.
However, Poupyrev teaches further comprising: obtaining hand tracking data for a second hand based on the sensor data; detecting a second input gesture by the second hand based on the hand tracking data; determining whether the second hand is in an active state; and in accordance with a determination that the first hand is not in the active state, disregarding the second input gesture while performing the input action.[0043-00046].(fig. 4 408 and 410) and (fig. 5 (502 and 504)) Poupyrev
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Clarkson and Lafreniere to further include further comprising: obtaining hand tracking data for a second hand based on the sensor data; detecting a second input gesture by the second hand based on the hand tracking data; determining whether the second hand is in an active state; and in accordance with a determination that the first hand is not in the active state, disregarding the second input gesture while performing the input action as taught by Poupyrev in order to help with some gestures may be difficult to detect, distinguish from actions that are not intended as gestures, and determine a context for the gestures.[0003]
In regards to claim 13, Clarkson and Lafreniere in view of Poupyrev, see rational of claim 7, teaches (Original) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further comprising computer readable code to:obtain hand tracking data for a second hand based on the sensor data; detect a second input gesture by the second hand based on the hand tracking data; determine whether the second hand is in an active state; and in accordance with a determination that the first hand is not in the active state, disregard the second input gesture while performing the input action in accordance with the first input gesture. .[0043-00046].(fig. 4 408 and 410) and (fig. 5 (502 and 504)) Poupyrev
In regards to claim 19, Clarkson and Lafreniere in view of Poupyrev, see rational of claim 7, teaches (Original) The system of claim 15, further comprising computer readable code to: obtain hand tracking data for a second hand based on the sensor data; detect a second input gesture by the second hand based on the hand tracking data; determine whether the second hand is in an active state; and in accordance with a determination that the first hand is not in the active state, disregard the second input gesture while performing the input action. .[0043-00046].(fig. 4 408 and 410) and (fig. 5 (502 and 504)) Poupyrev
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner notes, while 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). While the amendments and arguments appear to overcome the prior art alone with respect to the, state of the hands, Examiner believes it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to teach the claims wherein a first state and second state (Clarkson limited mode and full detection mode) tied to the state of the hand [0026, 0029, 0049-0053] Lafreniere in order to reduce misinterpretations [0022] Lafreniere.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GRANT SITTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-6084. 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.
/GRANT SITTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights