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 11-20 and 23-31 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application remarks filed on 07/07/2026.
CONTINUING DATA: This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/083232 11/25/2022
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS: GERMANY 10 2022 100 332.9 01/10/2022
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 16, 19, 23-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Park (US 2016/0170495 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 11, Park discloses a method for a gesture recognition system for improving gesture recognition, wherein the gesture recognition system has at least a first sensor and a second sensor, the method comprising: determining a user gesture by means of the first sensor (fig.6, “211b”; [0108]; a first collection unit collects a user gesture);
determining an intention to act or no intention to act using the second sensor in order to improve the determination of the user gesture (fig.6, “212b”; [0109]; a second collection unit collects a user gaze direction);
determining a user input based on the determined user gesture and the determined intention to act; and carrying out an operation based on the user input (fig.19; [0109], [0113]; a user gesture is recognized and performed when the user is gazing into predefined vehicle coordinates); and
wherein if no intention to act is determined by the second sensor, the determined user gesture is discarded and no user input is determined therefrom ([0161]; the second sensor determines the intention to act is applied on a first control, discarding input to a second control).
As to claim 16, Park discloses wherein determining the intention to act includes determining a user's direction of view using the second sensor ([0028]; user's gaze on the basis of a predetermined vehicle coordinate).
As to claim 19, Park discloses wherein the user gesture includes a micro-user gesture ( [0083]; the user’s finger movement is captured).
As to claim 23, Park discloses a non-transitory storage device storing a computer program for carrying out the method of claim 11, when the computer program runs on a computer, a processor, or a programmable hardware component (fig.4).
As to claim 24, Park discloses a device for a gesture recognition system for improving a performance of the gesture recognition system, containing one or more interfaces configured to communicate with other communication devices; and a control module configured to carry out the method of claim 11 (fig.4).
As to claim 25, Park discloses a vehicle with the device for the gesture recognition system as claimed in claim 24 (fig.8; a vehicle-based gesture recognition system is disclosed).
As to claim 26, Park discloses a display, wherein the control module is designed to use the user input to change content displayed on the display (fig.2, “134”; [0072], [0141]; gestures are captured to control the contents the display).
As to claim 27, Park discloses wherein the display is a non-touch-sensitive display (fig.2, “134”; [0072], [0141]; air gestures are captured to control the contents the display).
As to claim 29, Park discloses wherein determining the user’s intention to act comprises detecting, by the second sensor, at least one of a direction of view of the user or a head orientation of the user ([0161]; a direction of the user’s head nod determines the intended control).
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 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Qiu et al. (US 12,474,781 B2).
As to claim 12, Park discloses wherein determining the user gesture includes determining by means of the first sensor in a … range ([0108]; user gesture is collected in a sensing region). Park does not expressly disclose a radar range.
In the same field of endeavor, Qiu discloses a radar range (fig.3A, fig.4B; col.10, l.7-.26; user gesture is identified within the radar range.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Park and Qiu before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the gesture recognition interface taught by Park to include the above limitation taught by Qiu with the motivation being to enhance the accuracy of gesture recognition.
As to claim 13, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the first sensor includes at least one of the group consisting of a radar transmitter and a radar receiver (Qiu, col.9, l.22-24).
As to claim 14, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the user gesture comprises a micro-gesture, wherein the micro-gesture is movement of at least one finger of a hand of a user (Park, [0083]; Qiu, col.4, l.54-l.55; the user’s hand/fingers gesture is recognized).
As to claim 15, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the user gesture comprises a micro-gesture, wherein the micro-gesture is movement of less than 5 centimeters (Qiu; fig.4B, “440”, “445”; two fingers of the user alternate moving up and down to perform a micro-gesture).
As to claim 20, Park does not expressly disclose wherein the determined user's intention to act is used for determination of a plurality of user inputs based on a plurality of determined user gestures within a predefined time.
In the same field of endeavor, Qiu discloses wherein the determined user's intention to act is used for determination of a plurality of user inputs based on a plurality of determined user gestures within a predefined time (col.23, l.61-l.64; a gesture is recognizable based on a time threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Park and Qiu before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the gesture recognition interface taught by Park to include the above limitation taught by Qiu with the motivation being to enhance the accuracy of gesture recognition.
Claims 17-18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Katz (US 2024/0362931 A1).
As to claim 17, Park does not expressly disclose wherein the second sensor includes a sensor supported by a rear view mirror of a vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Katz discloses wherein the second sensor includes a sensor supported by a rear view mirror of a vehicle (fig.11, “1100”; [0239]; a sensor is supported by a rear view mirror).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Park and Katz before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the gesture recognition interface taught by Park to include the above limitation taught by Katz with the motivation being to provide a logical location for capturing a user’s gaze direction in a vehicle.
As to claim 18, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the user gesture includes a micro-user gesture (Park, [0083]; the user’s finger movement is captured).
Claim 28 is a vehicle variation of claim 17, claim 28 is therefore rejected under the same rational as claim 17.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yuan et al. (US 2020/0341546 A1).
As to claim 30, Park discloses a method for a gesture recognition system for improving gesture recognition, wherein the gesture recognition system has at least a first sensor and a second sensor, the method comprising: determining a user gesture by means of the first sensor (fig.6, “211b”; [0108]; a first collection unit collects a user gesture);
determining an intention to act or no intention to act using the second sensor in order to improve the determination of the user gesture (fig.6, “212b”; [0109]; a second collection unit collects a user gaze direction);
determining a user input based on the determined user gesture and the determined intention to act; and carrying out an operation based on the user input; and carrying out an operation based on the user input (fig.19; [0109], [0113]; a user gesture is recognized and performed when the user is gazing into predefined vehicle coordinates). Park does not expressly disclose wherein determining an intention to act comprises determining that a user action detected by the second sensor meets a minimum duration threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Yuan discloses determining that a user action detected by the second sensor meets a minimum duration threshold ([0005]; a minimum gaze duration is detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Park and Yuan before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the gesture recognition interface taught by Park to include the above limitation taught by Yuan with the motivation being to enhance usability by reducing false positives.
As to claim 31, Park does not expressly disclose wherein the second sensor comprises a sound transducer and determining an intention to act comprises detecting an acoustic signal from the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Yuan discloses wherein the second sensor comprises a sound transducer (fig.1, “112”) and determining an intention to act comprises detecting an acoustic signal from the user ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Park and Yuan before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the gesture recognition interface taught by Park to include the above limitation taught by Yuan with the motivation being to enhance security by identifying authorized user(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Park does not disclose discarding a user gesture.
In response to applicant’s argument, Park discloses detecting a user gesture for a number of functions, applying the gesture for the intended of the function and discarding the gesture for the unintended function ([0161]).
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