Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application remarks filed on 07/10/2026.
CONTINUING DATA: This application has PRO 63/470,811 06/02/2023
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2020/0225830 A1) in view of Hilliges et al. (US 2014/0104274 A1) and Faaborg et al. (US 2017/0060230 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Tang discloses a method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor (fig.1; a head mount device is disclosed): obtaining hand data associated with a position of a hand in a three-dimensional (3D) space, the hand data obtained based on first sensor data ([0018]; user’s hand position is captured);
obtaining gaze data associated with a direction of a gaze in the 3D space, the gaze data obtained based on second sensor data ([0018]; user’s gaze direction is captured);
selecting a direct interaction mode ([0029]; a near interaction mode is activated);
selecting an indirect interaction mode ([0021], [0022]’ a far interaction mode is activated); and
in accordance with selecting the indirect interaction mode, identifying a second interaction with a second virtual object based on identifying the second virtual object for indirect interaction based on identifying that the gaze direction intersects a second area associated with a position of the second virtual object in the XR environment (fig.3; [0021], [0022]; user gazes into the direction of the virtual object to engage the far interaction mode with the virtual object with gestures). Tang does not expressly disclose …based on determining that a hand position is within an area associated with a virtual object in the XR environment; in accordance with selecting the direct interaction mode, identifying a first interaction with a first virtual object based on identifying that the position of the hand intersects a first area associated with a position of the first virtual object in an extended reality (XR) environment corresponding to the 3D space; …based on determining that the hand position is outside the area associated with the virtual object in the XR environment.
In the same field of endeavor, Hilliges discloses in accordance with … the direct interaction mode, identifying a first interaction with a first virtual object based on identifying that the position of the hand intersects a first area associated with a position of the first virtual object in an extended reality (XR) environment corresponding to the 3D space (fig.3; [0038], [0039]; user’s fingers collide with a virtual object to perform an action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Tang and Hilliges before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the virtual object interaction mode interface taught by Tang to include virtually mimic direct object manipulation taught by Hilliges with the motivation being to enhance realism to virtual object manipulation. Tang-Hilliges does not expressly disclose …based on determining that a hand position is within an area associated with a virtual object in the XR environment; …based on determining that the hand position is outside the area associated with the virtual object in the XR environment.
In the same field of endeavor, Faaborg discloses …based on determining that a hand position is within an area associated with a virtual object in the XR environment; …based on determining that the hand position is outside the area associated with the virtual object in the XR environment ([0050]; fig.12A, fig.12F;different input methods are provided based on the distance of the virtual object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Faaborg before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the virtual object interaction mode interface taught by the prior art as combined to include the above limitation taught by Faaborg with the motivation being to enhance usability by providing a dynamic input modes switching.
As to claim 2, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the direct interaction mode and indirect interaction mode are selected based on proximity of hand position to positions of virtual objects in the XR environment (Tang, abstract; Hilliges, fig.3; modes are selectable based on distance away from the virtual object), wherein the indirect interaction mode is selected in circumstances in which hand position in the XR environment intersects areas associated with the virtual objects in the XR environment (Tang, fig.3, “60”; user’s hand position interacts with a virtual object by way of a virtual ray originated from the user’s hand position).
As to claim 3, the prior art as combined discloses wherein identifying the second interaction with the second virtual object is further based on identifying a hand gesture coinciding with the gaze direction intersecting the gaze the second area (Tang, fig.3; [0024]; virtual object interaction is based on both the gaze direction and hand gesture).
As to claim 4, the prior art as combined discloses wherein identifying the first interaction with the first virtual object comprises determining an input location on a user interface based on a movement path of the hand (fig.5C; [0028]; user’s fingers are tracked to determine an input location).
As to claim 5, the prior art as combined does not discloses wherein identifying the first interaction with the first virtual object comprises determining whether a gesture is a tap gesture based on a movement path of the hand (Tang, [0028]; motion by the hand or finger is captured to determine a tap gesture).
INDEPENDENT claim 12 is a system variation of claim 1, therefore claim 12 rejected under the same rational addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 13 is a system variation of claim 2, therefore claim 13 rejected under the same rational addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 14 is a system variation of claim 3, therefore claim 14 rejected under the same rational addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 15 is a system variation of claim 4, therefore claim 15 rejected under the same rational addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim 16 is a system variation of claim 5, therefore claim 16 rejected under the same rational addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above.
As to INDEPENDENT claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variation of claim 1, therefore claim 20 rejected under the same rational addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang-Hilliges-Faaborg in view of Lapp (US 2021/0109651 A1).
As to claim 6, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose determining whether segments of a hand movement have a characteristic that satisfies a retraction criterion, the retraction criterion configured to distinguish retraction motion from another type of motion; and associating a subset of the segments of the movement with user interface contact based on whether the characteristic of each of the segments satisfies the retraction criterion.
In the same field of endeavor, Lapp discloses determining whether segments of a hand movement have a characteristic that satisfies a retraction criterion, the retraction criterion configured to distinguish retraction motion from another type of motion; and associating a subset of the segments of the movement with user interface contact based on whether the characteristic of each of the segments satisfies the retraction criterion ([0382]-[0384]; a retraction distance of the user’s hand is measured to determine if the user intent to drop a gesture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Lapp before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the virtual object interaction mode interface taught by the prior art as combined to include gesturing reversal taught by Lapp with the motivation being to increase input precision by reducing false positives.
Claim 17 is a system variation of claim 6, therefore claim 17 rejected under the same rational addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 8-10 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang-Hilliges-Faaborg in view of Ambrus et al. (US 2016/0179336 A1).
As to claim 8, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose wherein identifying the second interaction with the second virtual object comprises: obtaining gaze motion classification data based on the gaze data, the gaze motion classification data distinguishing gaze periods associated with gaze holding events from gaze periods associated with non-gaze-holding events.
In the same field of endeavor, Ambrus discloses wherein identifying the second interaction with the second virtual object comprises: obtaining gaze motion classification data based on the gaze data, the gaze motion classification data distinguishing gaze periods associated with gaze holding events from gaze periods associated with non-gaze-holding events.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Ambrus before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the virtual object interaction mode interface taught by the prior art as combined to include gaze selection mechanisms taught by Ambrus with the motivation being to increase input precision by reducing false positives.
As to claim 9, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose wherein identifying the second interaction with the second virtual object comprises: generating a plurality of sample locations based on the gaze data; identifying virtual objects based on the plurality of sample locations; and selecting the second virtual object, from the virtual objects, to associate with a user activity based on a selection criterion.
In the same field of endeavor, Ambrus discloses generating a plurality of sample locations based on the gaze data; identifying virtual objects based on the plurality of sample locations ([0027]; candidate objects are determined by 1st and 2nd ray casting); and
selecting the second virtual object, from the virtual objects, to associate with a user activity based on a selection criterion ([0052]; the object meeting certain criteria is selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Ambrus before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the virtual object interaction mode interface taught by the prior art as combined to include gaze selection mechanisms taught by Ambrus with the motivation being to increase input precision by reducing false positives.
As to claim 10, prior art as combined discloses wherein identifying the second interaction with the second virtual object further comprises: identifying a point to an application that provided the second virtual object such that the application can associate an action with the second virtual object ([0065], [0067]; a snap point is identified and a function from an application is applied to the identified point).
Claim 19 is a system variation of claim 8, therefore claim 19 rejected under the same rational addressed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang-Hilliges-Faaborg in view of Kapur et al. (US 2015/0123890 A1).
As to claim 11, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose determining an intentionality classification for a gesture based on the hand data; and enabling an input action corresponding to the gesture based on the intentionality classification.
In the same field of endeavor, Kapur discloses determining an intentionality classification for a gesture based on the hand data; and enabling an input action corresponding to the gesture based on the intentionality classification (fig.5D-fig.5E, fig.6A; [0033], [0038]; user’s gesturing intend is determined based on hand movements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Kapur before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the virtual object interaction mode interface taught by the prior art as combined to include intention detection taught by Kapur with the motivation being to increase input precision by determining user intent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights