DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Argument filed on 01/22/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-6 are pending for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-8, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argued the following:
a. The combination of Katz, Horodezky, and Moore fails to teach or suggest
i. “an image sensing unit for capturing at least one gesture image from at least one static gesture performed by a user; the first switching command corresponds to the gesture image from a two-fingered gesture performed by the user, and the second switching command is corresponding to the gesture image from a three-fingered gesture performed by the user; wherein, when the processing unit recognizes the two-fingered gesture corresponding to the first switching command, the processing unit transmits the first switching command to the controller so as to switch a display mode to a two-dimension display mode for displaying a planimetric map for displaying the map information and the coordinate information; wherein, when the processing unit recognizes the three-fingered gesture corresponding to the second switching command, the processing unit transmits the second switching command to the controller so as to switch the display mode to a three-dimension display mode for display a stereoscopic map for displaying the map information and the coordinate information.”
Regarding point (a)(i), applicant argues Katz teaches recognition of a dynamic gesture where the recognition mode can be switched between an initial recognition mode and a second recognition mode based on the dynamic gesture image where a first and second message are generated based on the recognition mode. The applicant argues the recognition mode is not switched based on a static gesture image of the hand of the user and that the dynamic image can’t be used to switch a map image displayed by the displayer between stereoscopic map image and a planimetric map image. However, the examiner disagrees with the arguments made. Katz specifies identifying in at least one image…a suspected hand gesture (Katz - [0168] : “identifying in the at least one image information corresponding to a suspected hand gesture by a user of the device”) and therefore Katz teaches identification of a hand gesture in one image which is identification of a static gesture, as such, Katz teaches identification of a series of static gestures to determine a dynamic gesture. Further, examiner disagrees that the teachings of Katz can’t be used to switch map image displayed between a planimetric and stereoscopic mode, while the map image switching taught by Katz regards a zoom function in and out of a map, hand gesture recognition is merely an input to a system and any hand gesture recognized can be used for any purpose as an input and therefore can be used to switch between map modes such as stereoscopic map images and planimetric map images.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image sensing unit” and “a processing unit” in claim 1. “a position receiving module for receiving” in claim 2.
The specification was examined for a definite structure of the devices.
An image sensing unit will be defined as “complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor sensor (CMOS Sensor) or the charge-coupled device (CCD)” found in [0040] of the specification.
A processing unit will be defined as a “digital signal processor” found in [0043] of the specification.
A position receiving module will be defined as “a global positioning system (GPS) receiver” found in [0125] of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US 20140157210 A1), hereinafter Katz, in view of Horodezky et al. (US 20100136957 A1), hereinafter Horodezky and further in view of Moore et al (US 20130321257 A1) hereinafter Moore.
Regarding claim 1, Katz teaches an apparatus having a gesture sensor, wherein the apparatus is a satellite navigation apparatus ([0034] “navigation application” and comprises:
a display device ([0302] and Fig. 3; 36 display screen;
a controller electrically connected to the display device so that map information [[and coordinate information]] are transmitted to and displayed on the display device ([0295] controlling a navigation application; presenting a map”; and
the gesture sensor including;
an image sensing unit ([0045] CMOS) for capturing at least one gesture image from at least one static gesture performed by a user ([0304] “The image sensor 46 is positioned on the surface of the first device 42 to obtain video images of a portion of three dimensional space in front of the first device 42 that are input to the gesture recognition system, so that when a performs a hand gesture with the user's hand 48 (FIG. 5) over the device 42. the gesture is recorded by the image sensor and detected by the gesture recognition system”, [0168] : “identifying in the at least one image information corresponding to a suspected hand gesture by a user of the device”); and
a processing unit ([0045] a DSP) electrically connected to the image sensing unit, wherein
the processing unit establishes a signal link with the controller,
the processing unit transmits at least a gesture control signal to the controller according to the at least one gesture image ([0017]-[0022] “The invention thus provides an interface system for controlling a first device, the interface system being a computer program product containing instructions for causing a processor to perform a method comprising: (a) receiving input from one or more image sensors; (b) in a gesture recognition module of the interface system, the gesture recognition module having two or more recognition modes … generate a first message wherein the generated first message is determined based upon the initial recognition mode of the gesture recognition module and an detected gesture”,
the at least one gesture control signal includes a first switching command (para [0311] : “A first zooming mode is entered when the first gesture is identified and a second zooming mode is entered when the second gesture is identified.”, [0021] “changing the recognition mode of the gesture recognition module from an initial recognition mode to a second recognition mode under may one or more predefined conditions, wherein the second recognition mode is determined based upon any one or more of the initial recognition mode of the gesture recognition module, and an detected gesture, and situational awareness information of the device” [0034] “The first message may be a command to the first device selected from depressing a virtual key displayed on a display screen of the first device… controlling a navigation application… zooming-in or out on a map or images”) .
While Katz teaches a navigation device teaching map information it does not mention the specifics of map information and coordinate information. Further Katz does not explicitly teach the first switching command corresponds to the gesture image from a two-fingered gesture performed by the user, and the second switching command is corresponding to the gesture image from a three-fingered gesture performed by the user;
wherein, when the processing unit recognizes the two-fingered gesture corresponding to the first switching command, the processing unit transmits the first switching command to the controller so as to switch a display mode to a two-dimension display mode for displaying a planimetric map for displaying the map information and the coordinate information;
wherein, when the processing unit recognizes the three-fingered gesture corresponding to the second switching command, the processing unit transmits the second switching command to the controller so as to switch the display mode to a three-dimension display mode for display a stereoscopic map for displaying the map information and the coordinate information.
However, regarding “the first switching command corresponds to the gesture image from a two-fingered gesture performed by the user, and the second switching command is corresponding to the gesture image from a three-fingered gesture performed by the user”, this limitation pertains to a design choice regarding the recognized gestures being mapped to an input. As gesture recognition to command can be arbitrarily mapped, a choice of which gesture is mapped to which command is a design choice and therefore would be obvious in light of Katz to incorporate a two finger gesture and a three finger gesture as gestures for use as inputs. However, Katz in view of the design choice does not explicitly teach the two fingered gesture used “so as to switch a display mode to a two-dimension display mode for displaying a planimetric map for displaying the map information and the coordinate information” and
the three fingered gesture used “so as to switch the display mode to a three-dimension display mode for display a stereoscopic map for displaying the map information and the coordinate information”.
Horodezky teaches the specifics of map information and coordinate information (Fig. 10, and [0061] “location coordinates may be associated with and stored as information associated with each of such photographs. Location information associated with such photographs may be correlated with a map image such that if a user displays a map image covering location coordinates corresponding to those of stored images, an indicator may be displayed on such a map”. Fig. 12, 1210 and [0063] shows a feature of interest on a map with its coordinate information (address)).
Katz and Horodezky are analogous art because both are directed to the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of input systems for display devices.
Katz teaches using gesture input device to control a display device with runs a navigation application. Horodezky teaches movement based input system (accelerometer/gyroscopes) for a display device which displays maps and coordinate information. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have incorporated the coordinate information, as taught by Horodezky, into the maps of the navigation apparatus of Katz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include points of interest or user information on the maps (Horodezky [0061]). However the combination does not explicitly teach the switching command for switching the stereoscopic map to the planimetric map, and the different display modes as the stereoscopic map and the planimetric map.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (map display switching between 2D and 3D modes), Moore teaches switching the stereoscopic map to the planimetric map, and the different display modes as the stereoscopic map and the planimetric map (para [0020] : “In some embodiments, if a user is currently viewing a 2D version of a map view of a map region, a user may tilt the mobile device, and in response, the mapping application on the mobile device changes the 2D version of the map view into a 3D map view of the map region.”, as the combination of Katz and Horodezky teaches a gesture control signal including the design choice of two and three fingered gestures and the controller controlling the display to switch between different display modes and Moore teaches switching between 2D and 3D maps as display modes the combination teaches the gesture control signal switching between a planimetric map (2D) and a stereoscopic map (3D)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention modify the combination of Katz and Horodezky with the map switching of Moore to allow the user to display more relevant or additional information.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Katz, Horodezky, and Moore teaches the apparatus having the gesture sensor according to claim 1.
Katz further teaches wherein the gesture control signal received by the controller includes a zoom-in command ([0034] zooming-in, a zoom-out command ([0034] zooming-in or out), and a scrolling command ([0034] scrolling pages), and the controller is capable of controlling the display device to enlarge, diminish or scroll the map information displayed according to the zoom-in command, the zoom-out command, and the scrolling command ([0062] actions are performed according to the gesture).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US 20140157210 A1), hereinafter Katz, in view of Horodezky et al. (US 20100136957 A1), hereinafter Horodezky, Moore, and Wiener (US 20020087263 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Katz, Horodezky, and Moore teaches the apparatus having the gesture sensor according to claim 1.
Katz does not teach wherein the controller comprises:
a position receiving module for receiving a satellite signal;
a database for storing the map information; and
a processor electrically connected to the position receiving module and the database, wherein the processor receives and processes the satellite signal to obtain the coordinate information, and the processor transmits the coordinate information and the map information to the display device for displaying.
Horodezky teaches a position receiving module for receiving a satellite signal ([0054] “mobile device 400 may be adapted to receive location services (e.g., satellite position system”);
a database for storing the map information ([0054] mapping images may be stored locally or in an external database); and
a processor electrically (Fig. 2; 230) connected to the position receiving module ([0054 “mobile device 400 may be adapted to receive location services”, there is a required electrical connection from the location service receiving device and the processor in order to use the information) and the database (Fig. 2; 240), wherein the processor receives and processes the satellite signal to obtain the coordinate information ([0054 “mobile device 400 may be adapted to receive location services (e.g., satellite position system, advanced forward link trilateration, or a hybrid location system) to estimate a current location of the mobile device 400 and generate a map image based on the estimated location”), and the processor transmits the coordinate information and the map information to the display device for displaying (Fig. 5 and [0054] the map is presented to the user on a display, therefore the information is transmitted to the display Fig.2; 250) .
Katz teaches using gesture input device to control a display device with runs a navigation application. Horodezky teaches movement based input system (accelerometer/gyroscopes) for a display device which displays maps and coordinate information. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have incorporated the coordinate information, as taught by Horodezky, into the maps of the navigation apparatus of Katz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include points of interest or user information on the maps (Horodezky [0061]).
Katz in view of Horodezky does not teach a global positioning system (GPS) receiver.
Wiener teaches a global positioning system (GPS) receiver ([0032] “subscriber unit 35 is also equipped with a GPS antenna 41 and GPS receiver 77”).
Katz and Wiener are analogous art because both are directed to the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of devices for navigation applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a GPS receiver as taught by Wiener for the position receiving module to receive information from the satellite position system of Horodezky in the apparatus of Katz in view of Horodezky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for “to receive current position information” (Wiener [0032]).
Claims 3, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US 20140157210 A1), hereinafter Katz, in view of Horodezky et al. (US 20100136957 A1), hereinafter Horodezky, Moore, Ackerman et al. (US 20140267940 A1), hereinafter Ackerman, and Wiener (US 20020087263 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Katz, Horodezky, and Moore teaches the apparatus having the gesture sensor according to claim 1.
Katz further teaches comprising a microphone electrically connected to the controller ([0028] “a microphone connected to the device”),
The combination of Katz, Horodezky, and Moore does not teach wherein the gesture control signal includes a voice input command, the controller controls the microphone to turn on according to the voice input command for receiving a voice message, the controller receives and processes the voice message to obtain a target coordinate information and a path information.
Ackerman teaches herein the gesture control signal includes a voice input command, the controller controls the microphone to turn on according to the voice input command for receiving a voice message ([0056] “gesture 66 on the surface of the electronic display device 68 to have the electronic display device display a specific piece of content. In addition to changing visual content, initiation of gestures 66 can cause audio playback from the speaker, or start recording from the microphone of device 68”).
Katz and Ackerman are analogous art because both are directed to the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of mobile display devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gesture to turn on another system of the device such as the microphone as taught by Ackerman in the apparatus of Katz in view of Horodezky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the device to have a smaller power source (Ackerman [0039]).
Katz in view of Horodezky and Ackerman does not teach the controller receives and processes the voice message to obtain a target coordinate information and a path information.
Wiener teaches the controller receives and processes the voice message to obtain a target coordinate information and a path information ([0026] “Speech processing modules 46 receive and process verbal requests conveyed by the subscriber, such as a request to navigate to a specified destination. After subscriber unit 35 transmits the subscriber's request to service provider 31, service provider 31 gathers map information that the subscriber needs in order to navigate from a current position to the specified destination”).
Katz and Wiener are analogous art because both are directed to the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of devices for navigation applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use voice controlled navigation to input the user destination as taught by Wiener in the apparatus of Katz in view of Horodezky and Wiener. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for “a system and method that promotes safety in, and enhances the utility of, navigation systems” (Wiener [0011]).
Regarding claim 4, Katz in view of Horodezky, Moore, Ackerman and Wiener teaches the apparatus having the gesture sensor according to claim 3.
Katz further teaches comprising a speaker electrically connected to the controller (Fig. 3; 30 and [0302] speaker).
Katz does not teach wherein the gesture control signal received by the controller includes a voice guide executing command, and the controller converts the path information into a sound signal according to the voice guide executing command, and then transmits the sound signal to the speaker for executing voice guiding function.
Wiener teaches wherein the [[gesture]] control signal received by the controller includes a voice guide executing command (Fig. 5, B506 and [0059] when user destination is received the voice guided navigation begins), and the controller converts the path information into a sound signal according to the voice guide executing command, and then transmits the sound signal to the speaker for executing voice guiding function (Fig. 6; b608 and [0061] “If the inputted destination has not been reached, subscriber unit 35, in block B608, plays audio queues which prompt the user to take action at various waypoints along the route”. Fig. 3; 83 speaker).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to uses a gesture to begin a program as taught by Katz, a program such as the use voice navigation as taught by Wiener in the apparatus of Katz in view of Horodezky and Wiener. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for “a system and method that promotes safety in, and enhances the utility of, navigation systems” (Wiener [0011]).
Regarding claim 5, Katz in view of Horodezky, Moore, Ackerman and Wiener teaches the apparatus having the gesture sensor according to claim 4.
Katz further teaches wherein the gesture control signal received by the controller includes a voice guide terminating command ([0034] “The first message may be a command to the first device selected from depressing a virtual key displayed on a display screen of the first device; rotating a selection carousel; switching between desktops, running on the first device a predefined software application; turning off an application on the first device” turning off the application is understood to turn off the voice guided navigation) and the controller controls the speaker to stop voice guiding function according to the voice guide terminating command ([0034] turning off the application is understood to stop playing the voice guided application through the speakers. [0034] turn off speakers).
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 DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. 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.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights