CTNF 18/751,182 CTNF 87740 51Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph , as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite “sensor data structure”. However, the claims do not define what constitutes a “sensor data structure”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claims further recite “aspect of a gesture”. The term “aspect” is subjective and undefined. Therefore, there is no objective boundaries of the claimed invention. The claims further recite “gesture inference”, is a functional and vague language without structure meaning. The term does not specify format, structure or level of abstraction. Dependent claims are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph, for being dependent upon rejected base independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Claim 1. A method [statutory category of invention] Claim 9. A device [statutory category of invention] Claim 16. A computer storage device [statutory category of invention] Step 2A, Prong 1: The claims recite collecting data, analyzing the data using models, and making a decision (gesture detection) and acting on it. These limitations fall within mental processes (evaluating gesture aspects and determining a gesture), and/or mathematical concepts/mathematical modeling (machine learning inference), and or certain methods of organizing human activity (gestured based control system). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2: Each of claims 1, 9, and 16 recites additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim merely recites sensor data from multiple sensors over time, applies plurality machine learning models trained for different gesture aspects, and performs action based on detected gesture. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to sensor technology; improve a machine learning model architecture, improve data structure implementation, or provide a specific technological solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, merely implementing an abstract idea is not meaningfully integrate into a practical application. Step 2B: The additional elements such as use of generic sensors, generic machine learning models, and generic data processing. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and therefore do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, claims 1, 9, and 16 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons, as they do not add additional elements sufficient to overcome the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ang et al. (US Pub. 2024/0104961 A1, hereinafter "Ang") . Claim 1: Ang teaches A method comprising: processing a sensor data structure by each respective machine learning model of a plurality of machine learning models to produce a corresponding respective gesture inference of a plurality of gesture inferences (“Ang”, Abstract, [0031], apply ML models to sensor/computer vision data for gesture inference) , wherein each respective machine learning model is trained to infer a corresponding aspect of a gesture by a body part (“Ang”, Abstract, different models addressing variability (inter/intra-session), implying specialization of models for different aspects; [0090]-[0092], first ML model to infer an IMU gesture inference (motion aspect) , second ML model to infer biopotential gesture inference (biopotential aspect) , and each gesture inference relates to its corresponding aspect of a gesture, and wherein the sensor data structure includes sensor data from a plurality of sensors over a period of time and each of the plurality of sensors generates data indicative of at least one aspect of the body part of a user (“Ang”, [0057], [0188]-[0189], different models addressing variability (inter/intra-session), implying specialization of models for different aspects) ; determining a detected gesture of the body part corresponding to the sensor data based at least in part on the plurality of gesture inferences; and performing an action based on the detected gesture (“Ang”, [0093], [0177], [0188]-[0189], [0150]-[0151], [0154]-[0156], [0241]-[0245]) . Claim 2: Ang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising collecting the sensor data from the plurality of sensors over the period of time into the sensor data structure (“Ang”, [0008], [0060], [0068]) . Claim 3: Ang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of machine learning models includes: a pinch-closed-state model producing a static-closed gesture inference, a pinch-transition model producing a pinching-motion inference, and a release-transition model producing a releasing-motion inference (“Ang”, Fig. 12, [0148]-[0151]) . Claim 4: Ang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detected gesture is selected from a list comprising: a pinch-closed gesture, a pinch-closing gesture, a pinch-releasing gesture, and a double-pinch gesture (“Ang”, Fig. 12, [0148]-[0151]) . Claim 5: Ang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising modifying the detected gesture based on a current context of a user interface (“Ang”, [0191], [0210]) . Claim 6: Ang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of gesture inferences corresponds to an aspect of a gesture occurring during a current period of time and is based on the collected sensor data for the current period of time and a prior period of time before the current period of time (“Ang”, [0068]-[0070], [0135], [0188]) . Claim 7: Ang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detected gesture is based on a weighting amongst the plurality of gesture inferences, and the weighting for a current time period is based on the gesture inferences for a prior time period before the current time period (“Ang”, [0068]-[0070], [0135], [0188]) . Claim 8: Ang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the action includes providing the detected gesture to a user interface having a context and an input based on the detected gesture (“Ang”, [0191], [0210]) . Claim 9: claim 9 is directed to a device for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 10: claim 10 is directed to the device of claim 9 for implementing the method steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 11: claim 11 is directed to the device of claim 9 for implementing the method steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 12: claim 12 is directed to the device of claim 9 for implementing the method steps of claim 4. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 13: claim 13 is directed to the device of claim 9 for implementing the method steps of claim 5. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 14: claim 14 is directed to the device of claim 9 for implementing the method steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 15: claim 15 is directed to the device of claim 9 for implementing the method steps of claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 16: claim 16 is directed to a computer storage device for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 17: claim 17 is directed to the computer storage device of claim 16 for implementing the method steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 18: claim 18 is directed to the computer storage device of claim 16 for implementing the method steps of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 19: claim 19 is directed to the computer storage device of claim 16 for implementing the method steps of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 20: claim 20 is directed to the computer storage device of claim 16 for implementing the method steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gillian et al. (U.S. 2020/0320416 A1) discloses selective inference generation with distributed machine-learned models. Chandler et al. (U.S. 2022/0036050 A1) discloses real-time gesture recognition method and apparatus. Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c). Point of Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 PM. 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, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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. /PHUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/751,182 Page 2 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/751,182 Page 3 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/751,182 Page 4 Art Unit: 2174
Prosecution Insights