DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on pg. 8:
“…Applicant respectfully submits that this rejection is based on a mischaracterization of the cited references and a flawed motivation to combine them.
The Office Action equates Carmel's vhtContactPatch with the claimed "zones for display." This is incorrect. Carmel teaches a system for controlling a physical force-feedback device. The vhtContactPatch is an internal data structure used to "supply the dedicated hardware unit with predictive information" to generate actual forces on a user's hand via hardware like a CyberGrasp glove (Carmel, Col. 26, 11. 15-24). Thus, Carmel's system is not for providing visual feedback to simulate haptics, but for controlling physical hardware.”
Examiner contends that the claim does not indicate that the device does not control physical hardware or simulates haptics, so the relevance to this argument is unclear. Also, Examiner relies upon Tokita to clearly show the method of providing a visual display (Fig. 1 and para. 124, for example), so as to simulate haptics (i.e. vibration, Fig. 8 and para. 149, for example). Therefore, this argument is rendered unpersuasive.
Applicant continues on pg. 8:
“Furthermore, Tokita does not teach the claimed features. Tokita discloses a user gripping a physical tool simulator (e.g., a handheld device) that provides physical torque and force feedback to the user's hand (Tokita, Abstract, Fig. 5). Tokita does not teach defining zones for display at the distal ends of a user's fingers to facilitate direct interaction with a virtual object. The Examiner's motivation for combining the references is improper and based on hindsight. Embodiments of the present invention provide haptic-like visual feedback to overcome the cost and complexity of hardware-based haptic systems (see Specification, paras. [0016], [0018]). Carmel's system, which is designed to control such hardware, teaches directly away from this goal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine a physical tool simulator (Tokita) with a framework for controlling a physical haptic glove (Carmel) to arrive at the claimed features, which uses visual cues to simulate haptic interaction without requiring such hardware.
For these reasons, the combination of Tokita and Carmel fails to teach or suggest the features recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of this rejection.”
Examiner contends that the claim makes no mention of providing haptic-like visual feedback, so the argument is rendered irrelevant. As to the motivation to combine the teachings of Tokita with those of Carmel or any other reference, please refer to the rejections below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokita (US Pub. No. 2008/0059131 A1) in view of Carmel et. al. (US Pat. 7,676,356 B2).
As to claim 1, Tokita shows a method of determining intent (i.e. providing feedback information during attempts at manipulation of a virtual object, para. 121) for an interaction (i.e. grasping) between a hand in a three-dimensional (3D) sensory space (i.e. real space, Figs. 1 and 10 and paras. 124 and 176) and a movable virtual object (i.e. virtual models such as machine tool grip model, virtual bolt, etc., Fig. 10 and para. 162) in a virtual space (para. 162) that the hand interacts with (paras. 124 and 206), the method including: sensing movement made by the fingers of the hand (Fig. 22 and paras. 173 and 203); and responsive to detecting a hand-gesture made by fingers or the hand, manipulating the virtual object (Fig. 22 and paras. 203 and 204).
Tokita does not show defining at distal ends of fingers of a hand, a plurality of zones for display on any surface of a virtual object, each zone, of the zones, representing a virtual location in the virtual space that corresponds to a location tangent to a particular finger of the hand in the 3D sensory space.
Carmel shows the method of defining at distal ends of fingers of a hand, a plurality of zones (LSAs/vhtContactPatch) for display on any surface of a virtual object (Fig. 3 and Col. 7, lines 23 – 31), each zone, of the zones, representing a virtual location in the virtual space that corresponds to a location tangent to a particular finger of the hand in the 3D sensory space (Col. 26, lines 14 – 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tokita with those of Carmel because designing the system in this way allows the device to enables user applications to easily query data from a running haptic simulation (Col. 29, lines 43 – 44).
As to claim 3, Tokita shows the method of identifying the gesture-type as a rotational stroke in response to detecting rotation of the points of virtual contacts around the center of effort (i.e. when the physical object is rotated, the virtual object is rotated in a corresponding motion, paras. 322 and 323).
As to claim 10, Tokita shows a system determining intent (i.e. providing feedback information during attempts at manipulation of a virtual object, para. 121) for an interaction (i.e. grasping) between a hand in a three-dimensional (3D) sensory space (i.e. real space, Figs. 1 and 10 and paras. 124 and 176) and a movable virtual object (i.e. virtual models such as machine tool grip model, virtual bolt, etc., Fig. 10 and para. 162) in a virtual space (para. 162) that the hand interacts with (paras. 124 and 206), the system including: a processor (CPU 701, Fig. 10) and a computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions (paras. 161 – 163) configured to cause the processor to: sense movement made by the fingers of the hand (Fig. 22 and paras. 173 and 203); and responsive to detecting a hand-gesture made by fingers or the hand, manipulate the virtual object (Fig. 22 and paras. 203 and 204).
Tokita does not show defining at distal ends of fingers of a hand, a plurality of zones for display on any surface of a virtual object, each zone, of the zones, representing a virtual location in the virtual space that corresponds to a location tangent to a particular finger of the hand in the 3D sensory space.
Carmel shows the method of defining at distal ends of fingers of a hand, a plurality of zones (LSAs/vhtContactPatch) for display on any surface of a virtual object (Fig. 3 and Col. 7, lines 23 – 31), each zone, of the zones, representing a virtual location in the virtual space that corresponds to a location tangent to a particular finger of the hand in the 3D sensory space (Col. 26, lines 14 – 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tokita with those of Carmel because designing the system in this way allows the device to enables user applications to easily query data from a running haptic simulation (Col. 29, lines 43 – 44).
As to claim 12, Tokita shows the method of identifying the gesture-type as a rotational stroke in response to detecting rotation of the points of virtual contacts around the center of effort (i.e. when the physical object is rotated, the virtual object is rotated in a corresponding motion, paras. 322 and 323).
As to claim 19, Tokita shows one or more non-transitory computer readable media (CPU 701, Fig. 10) having instructions stored thereon for performing a method (paras. 161 – 163) of determining intent (i.e. providing feedback information during attempts at manipulation of a virtual object, para. 121) for an interaction (i.e. grasping) between a hand in a three-dimensional (3D) sensory space (i.e. real space, Figs. 1 and 10 and paras. 124 and 176) and a movable virtual object (i.e. virtual models such as machine tool grip model, virtual bolt, etc., Fig. 10 and para. 162) in a virtual space (para. 162) that the hand interacts with (paras. 124 and 206), the system including: a processor (CPU 701, Fig. 10) and a computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions (paras. 161 – 163) configured to cause the processor to: sense movement made by the fingers of the hand (Fig. 22 and paras. 173 and 203); and responsive to detecting a hand-gesture made by fingers or the hand, manipulate the virtual object (Fig. 22 and paras. 203 and 204).
Tokita does not show defining at distal ends of fingers of a hand, a plurality of zones for display on any surface of a virtual object, each zone, of the zones, representing a virtual location in the virtual space that corresponds to a location tangent to a particular finger of the hand in the 3D sensory space.
Carmel shows the method of defining at distal ends of fingers of a hand, a plurality of zones (LSAs/vhtContactPatch) for display on any surface of a virtual object (Fig. 3 and Col. 7, lines 23 – 31), each zone, of the zones, representing a virtual location in the virtual space that corresponds to a location tangent to a particular finger of the hand in the 3D sensory space (Col. 26, lines 14 – 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tokita with those of Carmel because designing the system in this way allows the device to enables user applications to easily query data from a running haptic simulation (Col. 29, lines 43 – 44).
Claims 5 – 9, 14 – 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokita and Carmel in view of Gagner et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0296057 A1).
As to claims 5, 6, 14 and 15, Tokita does not show the step recognizing a gesture-type based on the determination of a distance between the plurality of zones and a threshold value.
Gagner shows the method of determining a type of a gesture based the determination of a distance between a zone and a threshold value s (i.e. determination as the whether the hand is in contact with the surface or not, para. 165).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Tokita with those of Gagner because designing the system in this way allows the system to allow a user to manipulate virtual objects in both high and low resolution scenarios (para. 165), which enhances the flexibility of the device.
As to claims 7, 16 and 20, Tokita as modified above does not show the step of determining a degree of precision of the control object-gesture responsive to: a number of points of virtual contacts of the zones; or proximities between the points of virtual contacts; and manipulating the virtual object based on the determined degree of precision.
Gagner shows the step of determining a degree of precision of the control object-gesture (i.e. gross motor of fine motor, para. 165) responsive to: a number of points of virtual contacts on a zone (i.e. on a surface); and proximities between the points of virtual contacts (i.e. proximity to the surface in question); and manipulating a virtual object based on the determined degree of precision (para. 165, note that if the user hand touches the surface, a fine precision method if used, but if the hand if raised in a volumetric area and is not in contact with the surface, a gross precision method is used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Tokita with those of Gagner because designing the system in this way allows the system to allow a user to manipulate virtual objects in both high and low resolution scenarios (para. 165), which enhances the flexibility of the device.
As to claims 8, 9, 17 and 18,Tokita does not show the step of determining the control object-gesture to be a gross motor gesture when the degree of precision exceeds a precision threshold value or determining the control object-gesture to be a fine motor gesture when the degree of precision deceeds a precision threshold value.
Gagner shows the method of determining the precision of a gesture based on threshold values (i.e. determination as the whether the hand is in contact with the surface or not, para. 165).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Tokita with those of Gagner because designing the system in this way allows the system to allow a user to manipulate virtual objects in both high and low resolution scenarios (para. 165), which enhances the flexibility of the device.
Claims 2, 4, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokita and Carmel as modified above in view of Gribetz et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0184496 A1).
As to claims 2 and 11, Tokita shows the method of identifying the gesture-type (i.e. movement, rotation, etc. of the presentation device 1, para. 154).
Tokita does not mention than one of the gesture can be recognized as a translational stroke in response to detecting displacement of the center of effort.
Gribetz shows a virtual reality environment wherein a recognized gesture is a translational stroke in response to detecting displacement of the center of effort (para. 962).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Tokita with those of Gribetz because designing the system in this way allows navigation quickly between the virtual objects in a user interface without a need for depth perception of hand relative to icon (para. 961).
As to claims 4 and 13, Tokita shows the method of identifying the gesture-type (i.e. movement, rotation, etc. of the presentation device 1, para. 154).
Tokita does not mention than one of the gestures can be recognized as a trans-rotational stroke in response to detecting rotation of the points of virtual contacts around the center of effort and displacement of the center of effort
Gribetz shows a virtual reality environment wherein a recognized gesture is a trans-rotational stroke in response to detecting rotation of the points of virtual contacts around the center of effort and displacement of the center of effort (i.e. selecting and rotation a virtual bubble, para. 575).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Tokita with those of Gribetz because designing the system in this way allows navigation quickly between the virtual objects in a user interface (para. 961).
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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights