DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This action is in response to the U.S. filing dated 16 August 2024 which is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2023/007211, dated 28 February 2023, which claims a foreign priority date, of 18 March 2022. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered below.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 August 2024 and 27 June 2025 have been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claims Interpreted as Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/Sixth Paragraph
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “gesture detection unit that detects”, “gesture detection unit that determines”, “gesture detection unit changes”, “output control unit that executes”, “gesture detection unit that predicts”, and “output control unit that displays” in claims 1-16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 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. Claims 1 and 17 recite “pinches a virtual object”. It is unclear where the virtual object exists; therefore, it is indefinite. Claim 7 recites “on a basis of pressure on the fingertip”. It is unclear how the pressure on the fingertip is being measured; therefore, it is indefinite. Claims 8 and 12 recite “on a basis of capacitance on the fingertip”. It is unclear how the capacitance on the fingertip is being measured; therefore, it is indefinite. Claim 13 recites “displaying the virtual object on a real world”. It is unclear how the virtual object is displayed on a real world; therefore, it is indefinite. The dependent claims are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 9-11, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dal Zot et al. (US 2016/0124513 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Dal Zot discloses an apparatus comprising:
a gesture detection unit that individually detects movement of a hand base portion that is a portion not including fingers of a hand of a user and movement of a first finger of the hand, and detects, on a basis of the movement of the hand base portion and the movement of the first finger, a gesture in which the user pinches a virtual object [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraphs 0041, 0091, 0096, 0113 and Figs. 2 and 4) ”a side view of the hand in a “grabbing” posture is shown overlaid with the positioning of the hand tip POI 201, the thumb finger tip POI 202, the palm centre POI 203, and the positioning of an additional stable virtual POI 204, the position of which being computed using the other aforementioned POI. In particular, the position of this virtual POI may be updated only if the palm centre has moved more than a predetermined distance, for example, 3 mm. This guarantees one advantageous aspect of the present invention, that is, a user will feel the interaction (that is, pointing) naturally and comfortably with his/her fingers tips even if he/she has to perform “pinching gestures”, “clicking gestures” or “grabbing gestures” at the same time. Furthermore, by associating the movements of the virtual POI with those of the palm centre, this guarantees that the pointer associated with the virtual POI will not move when the hand will not move irrespective of noise, jitter or small finger movements … tracking techniques enable the determination, in real-time, of the 3D position of each of the hand parameters. Two of the hand parameters may then be selected as being the two POIs from which 3D gestures are further recognised. The selection is easily made as each hand parameter is identified in the model, and, the gesture with which the interface will be controlled will define which hand parameters have to be selected. For example, the thumb finger tip and the index finger tip will be selected as the POIs for enabling the “pinching” 3D gesture … a trajectory of a continuous hand movement 400 performed for navigating into a map on a screen 403 with natural hand based 3D gestures. The navigation comprises a scrolling interaction occurring in between the shown start gesture detection 401 and the stop gesture detection times 402 performed during the continuous hand movement with a trajectory indicated by the dotted line 400. The on-screen map relative displacement/scrolling changes the position of the map making area 404 centred at 406 be displaced to area 405 centred at 407 when interaction is terminated. To enable a visual feedback to the user with respect to the 3D gesture he/she is performing … 3D gesture causes the change in position of the graphical user interface element”].
As for dependent claim 2, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 1 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein, in a case where a position and posture of the hand base portion have changed within a first area, the gesture detection unit determines that the virtual object has been pinched, when a fingertip of the first finger comes into contact with a fingertip of a second finger of the hand within a second area including the virtual object [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraphs 0091, 0096) ”the palm centre POI 203, and the positioning of an additional stable virtual POI 204, the position of which being computed using the other aforementioned POI. In particular, the position of this virtual POI may be updated only if the palm centre has moved more than a predetermined distance, for example, 3 mm … the thumb finger tip and the index finger tip will be selected as the POIs for enabling the “pinching” 3D gesture”].
As for dependent claim 3, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 2 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein, in a case where the change in the position of the hand base portion is less than a first threshold value and the change in the posture of the hand base portion is less than a second threshold value, the gesture detection unit determines that the position and posture of the hand base portion have changed within the first area [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraph 0091) ”the hand in a “grabbing” posture is shown overlaid with the positioning of the hand tip POI 201, the thumb finger tip POI 202, the palm centre POI 203, and the positioning of an additional stable virtual POI 204, the position of which being computed using the other aforementioned POI. In particular, the position of this virtual POI may be updated only if the palm centre has moved more than a predetermined distance, for example, 3 mm. This guarantees one advantageous aspect of the present invention, that is, a user will feel the interaction (that is, pointing) naturally and comfortably with his/her fingers tips even if he/she has to perform “pinching gestures”, “clicking gestures” or “grabbing gestures” at the same time. Furthermore, by associating the movements of the virtual POI with those of the palm centre, this guarantees that the pointer associated with the virtual POI will not move when the hand will not move irrespective of noise, jitter or small finger movements. In addition, to avoid jitter in the position of the virtual POI, this process may not binary, that is, start or stop, but instead may be smoothed from movements of the hand palm centre in the range of between 0 and 3 mm by a simple linear regression between the centre of the newly detected position of the virtual POI and the virtual POI position in the previous frame”].
As for dependent claim 4, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 3 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein the gesture detection unit changes at least either the first threshold value or the second threshold value on a basis of at least either a state or attribute of the user [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraphs 0062, 0095, 0108) ”The term “hand parameters” as used herein refers to at least the following parameters relating to the hand: the hand and finger tips, the centre of the palm (termed “palm centre”); the radius of the palm (termed “palm radius”), the normal to the palm (termed as “palm normal”), the openness of the palm (termed “palm openness” or “hand open-close status”), the base of the palm, and the distance from the palm centre to the hand contour … the 3D point cloud or a 2D representation of a perspective of the hand being tracked may be clustered into a predefined number of clusters, which may be determined as function of the average distance of the hand to the imaging device or camera constrained by the average size of the clusters to a dimension compliant with hand parameters (e.g. finger size) … the hand openness may be updated using the ratio between the distance between the two selected POIs and the palm radius. If the ratio is smaller than a predetermined threshold and if the hand was previously considered opened, the openness of the hand will be adjusted and be flagged as closed. If the ratio becomes greater than another predetermined threshold, the hand will be considered to be open”].
As for dependent claim 5, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 3 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein the gesture detection unit changes at least either the first threshold value or the second threshold value on a basis of a surrounding environment [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraphs 0078, 0082) ”hand gesture information are extracted from data provided by the range finding camera device, that data being in the form of a depth map or of a 3D point cloud (also termed a set of vertices) that comprises at least a depth measurement per pixel … the detection and determination of the palm centre of the hand which requires a prior computation of “a distance transform” the output of which is a distance map of the identified hand to be used … The use of such a ratio is a preferred embodiment in computing optimisation as root square computations are requiring much more processing unit resources. Moreover, for obtaining improved processing efficiency, a limited portion of the entire depth map is to be processed the boundary of which is defined by maximum and minimum, left, right, top and down positions of the labelled 3D pints corresponding to the considered hand in the depth map. In order to approximate the palm centre position, the process then comprises at least determining the pixel location at which the distance information intensity is the maximum value of all other of the pixels of the hand, and, in a preferred embodiment, minimising the distance to the previously determined palm centre may be considered for enabling smooth changes in position of the previously determined palm centre position”].
As for dependent claim 6, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 3 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein the gesture detection unit changes at least either the first threshold value or the second threshold value on a basis of at least either a state or attribute of the virtual object [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraphs 0115) ”According to that movement corresponding to displacement of the pointer (shown by the circles) along trajectory 506 on which a “start gesture” event 507 and a “stop gesture” event 508 are shown, if the movement is higher than a predetermined distance threshold (for example, 5 cm), and if trajectory demonstrates a linearity correlation value (for example, a linear correlation ratio of 0.8) in a single direction, and if the movement is performed within a predetermined period of time (for example, less than 1 s). This causes the previously not displayed windows or GUI or slide 504 to be displayed, and the previously displayed windows or GUI or slide 505 to be erased from the screen. According to the interface, the trajectory may be at least one of an up, down, left, right movement, or a combination of those motions, and they may be intended to control and change menus, such as, enabling the transition from an audio menu to a GPS menu to a video menu, etc., in an automotive infotainment system”].
As for dependent claim 9, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 2 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein the first finger is an index finger and the second finger is a thumb [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraph 0096) ”the thumb finger tip and the index finger tip will be selected as the POIs for enabling the “pinching” 3D gesture”].
As for dependent claim 10, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 1 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein on a basis of movement of the hand base portion and the movement of the first finger, the gesture detection unit further detects a gesture of releasing the virtual object [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraphs 0039, 0042) ”The corresponding graphical representation is attached to the location in space of said moveable element of the graphical user interface until detection of the stop event which unlocks it … the (start event) and (stop event) predetermined 3D gestures are the occurrence and respectively release of one of an open/close hand 3D gesture, a finger tip based “clicking” 3D gesture, a finger tip based “pinching” 3D gesture, a hand tip based “grabbing” 3D gesture”].
As for dependent claim 11, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 10 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein the gesture detection unit determines that the virtual object has been released, when a fingertip of the first finger is separated from a fingertip of the second finger in a case where a position and posture of the hand base portion have changed within a third area, or when at least either the position or posture of the first finger has changed beyond a fourth area and a state where the fingertip of the first finger is separated from the fingertip of the second finger has been maintained for a predetermined period or longer in a case where at least either the position or posture of the hand base portion has changed beyond the third area [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraphs 0092, 0103) ”if the single POI re-forms into the two initial POIs or/and the distance between the two POIs increases above another predetermined threshold value (for example, 0.3 mm) respectively, a “grabbing release event” or a “pinching release event” may be triggered and may be set as a “stop gesture event” … a hand assuming an open or released “pinching” pose is shown. Here, the POI corresponding to the tips of the index finger and the thumb are shown. FIG. 3b illustrates the response map 302 corresponding to the depth map shown in FIG. 3a. As can be seen, the response map 302 demonstrates an unambiguous response signal for the tip of the index finger, and for the thumb tip”].
As for dependent claim 13, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 1 and Dal Zot further discloses:
further comprising an output control unit that executes, in a field of view of the user, control of superimposing and displaying the virtual object on a real world [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraph 0061) ”The terms “virtual representation” and “representation” as used herein correspond to the digital representation in a virtual world or in a GUI of an interacting object. This interacting object may be an object from the virtual world itself, for example, a folder from the GUI of an operating system with which a user may interact. This interacting object may also be a digital representation in a virtual world of a real interacting object from the real world”].
As for dependent claim 16, Dal Zot discloses the apparatus as described in claim 13 and Dal Zot further discloses:
wherein the output control unit displays information indicating movement after the virtual object is released [(e.g. see Dal Zot paragraph 0113 and Fig. 4) ” The on-screen map relative displacement/scrolling changes the position of the map making area 404 centred at 406 be displaced to area 405 centred at 407 when interaction is terminated”].
As for independent claim 17, Dal Zot discloses a method. Claim 17 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 7, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dal Zot et al. (US 2016/0124513 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Lacey (US 11,983,326 B2) and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2022/0096187 A1).
As for dependent claim 7, Dal Zot teaches the apparatus as described in claim 2, but does not specifically teach wherein the gesture detection unit detects changes in the position and posture of the hand base portion on a basis of acceleration and angular velocity of a back of the hand. However, in the same field of invention, Lacey teaches:
wherein the gesture detection unit detects changes in the position and posture of the hand base portion on a basis of acceleration and angular velocity of a back of the hand [(e.g. see Lacey col 11 lines 34-37, col 28 line 62 – col 29 line 15) ”a plurality of keypoints (e.g., nine or more keypoints) are detected or tracked based on the captured image(s). At step 110-2, the tracked keypoints are used to determine whether hand 106 is making or is transitioning into making one of a predetermined set of gestures … detecting an action event while the user's hand is making the grasping gesture, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. The relative angular distance and the relative angular velocity may be tracked based on the angle between the index finger and the thumb vectors. If the index tip keypoint is unavailable, the index PIP keypoint may be used to form the angle. If the thumb tip keypoint is unavailable, the thumb IP keypoint may be used to form the angle. Additional description regarding the subset of keypoints that may be selectively tracked while the user is determined to be making the grasping gesture of FIG. 13 is provided above in reference to FIG. 6A … a first relative maximum angular distance (with its timestamp) may be detected. At 1304, a relative minimum angular distance (with its timestamp) may be detected. At 1306, a second relative maximum angular distance (with its timestamp) may be detected. It may be determined that an action event has been performed based on the differences in angular distance and the differences in times between the data detected at 1302, 1304, and 1306”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Dal Zot and Lacey, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the gesture detection unit detects changes in the position and posture of the hand base portion on a basis of acceleration and angular velocity of a back of the hand, as taught by Lacey, to the teachings of Dal Zot because it allows each gesture to have a unique algorithm for determining the interaction point which are registered to specific key points on the hand (e.g. see Lacey col 9 lines 1-4).
Dal Zot and Lacey do not specifically teach and detects a state of contact between the fingertip of the first finger and the fingertip of the second finger on a basis of pressure on the fingertip of the first finger. However, in the same field of invention, Xu teaches:
and detects a state of contact between the fingertip of the first finger and the fingertip of the second finger on a basis of pressure on the fingertip of the first finger [(e.g. see Xu paragraph 0040) ”mechanism is active (e.g., applying a pulling force as described herein). In one embodiment, the pressure sensors may be arranged to sense pressure being applied onto the sensor by the user (e.g., by pressing against the sensor). For instance, a pressure sensor on the index finger (and/or the thumb) may be used to sense how much pressure is being applied when the user is performing a pinching hand gesture”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Dal Zot, Lacey and Xu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add and detects a state of contact between the fingertip of the first finger and the fingertip of the second finger on a basis of pressure on the fingertip of the first finger., as taught by Xu, to the teachings of Dal Zot and Lacey because it allows a user to feel the shape, size, and texture of a virtual object (e.g. see Xu paragraph 0027).
As for dependent claim 8, Dal Zot, Lacey and Xu teach the apparatus as described in claim 7, but Dal Zot and Lacey do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Xu teaches:
wherein the gesture detection unit detects the state of contact between the fingertip of the first finger and the fingertip of the second finger further on a basis of capacitance on the fingertip of the first finger [(e.g. see Xu paragraph 0040) ”the user is performing a pinching hand gesture. In another embodiment, the sensors may include proximity sensors that are arranged to sense the presence (and distance) of nearby objects, such as capacitive sensors, inductive sensors, and optical sensors. From sensor data produced by proximity sensors, the system may determine finger and/or hand motion”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 7.
As for dependent claim 12, Dal Zot teaches the apparatus as described in claim 11, but does not specifically teach wherein the gesture detection unit detects changes in the position and posture of the hand base portion on a basis of acceleration and angular velocity of a back of the hand, detects changes in the position and posture of the first finger on a basis of acceleration and angular velocity of the first finger. However, Lacey teaches:
wherein the gesture detection unit detects changes in the position and posture of the hand base portion on a basis of acceleration and angular velocity of a back of the hand, detects changes in the position and posture of the first finger on a basis of acceleration and angular velocity of the first finger [(e.g. see Lacey col 11 lines 34-37, col 28 line 62 – col 29 line 15) ”a plurality of keypoints (e.g., nine or more keypoints) are detected or tracked based on the captured image(s). At step 110-2, the tracked keypoints are used to determine whether hand 106 is making or is transitioning into making one of a predetermined set of gestures … detecting an action event while the user's hand is making the grasping gesture, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. The relative angular distance and the relative angular velocity may be tracked based on the angle between the index finger and the thumb vectors. If the index tip keypoint is unavailable, the index PIP keypoint may be used to form the angle. If the thumb tip keypoint is unavailable, the thumb IP keypoint may be used to form the angle. Additional description regarding the subset of keypoints that may be selectively tracked while the user is determined to be making the grasping gesture of FIG. 13 is provided above in reference to FIG. 6A … a first relative maximum angular distance (with its timestamp) may be detected. At 1304, a relative minimum angular distance (with its timestamp) may be detected. At 1306, a second relative maximum angular distance (with its timestamp) may be detected. It may be determined that an action event has been performed based on the differences in angular distance and the differences in times between the data detected at 1302, 1304, and 1306”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 7.
Dal Zot and Lacey do not specifically teach and detects a state of contact between the fingertip of the first finger and the fingertip of the second finger on a basis of capacitance on the fingertip of the first finger. However, Xu teaches:
and detects a state of contact between the fingertip of the first finger and the fingertip of the second finger on a basis of capacitance on the fingertip of the first finger [(e.g. see Xu paragraph 0040) ”the user is performing a pinching hand gesture. In another embodiment, the sensors may include proximity sensors that are arranged to sense the presence (and distance) of nearby objects, such as capacitive sensors, inductive sensors, and optical sensors. From sensor data produced by proximity sensors, the system may determine finger and/or hand motion”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 7.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dal Zot et al. (US 2016/0124513 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Song et al. (US 2017/0235372 A1).
As for dependent claim 14, Dal Zot teaches the apparatus as described in claim 13, but does not specifically teach wherein the output control unit changes a display mode of the virtual object in a case where the virtual object is determined to have been pinched. However, in the same field of invention, Song teaches:
wherein the output control unit changes a display mode of the virtual object in a case where the virtual object is determined to have been pinched [(e.g. see Song paragraphs 0058, 0081) ”for example, “select” may be represented by changing a state of releasing fingers to a state of grabbing in which two or more fingers, including the thumb, are closed … FIG. 5 illustrates an example of selecting a virtual object 5 by the hand 1 since the hand 1 and an image are matched. As shown in FIG. 5, when the hand 1 and the virtual object 5 are matched, whether the virtual object 5 is selected may be indicated by, for example, highlighting an outline of the selected virtual object 5 or adjusting a tone of the selected virtual object 5. In addition, accuracy of an interaction may be increased by displaying a polygon or closed curve of a different color at a portion 5a where the selected virtual object 5 and the hand 1 meet. FIG. 5 shows an example of indicating a selection by highlighting the portion 5a where the selected virtual object 5 and the hand 1 meet”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Dal Zot and Song, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the output control unit changes a display mode of the virtual object in a case where the virtual object is determined to have been pinched, as taught by Song, to the teachings of Dal Zot because it allows for intended changes to be reflected to the user which provides more intuitive operation and manipulation of objects (e.g. see Song paragraphs 0007, 0010).
As for dependent claim 15, Dal Zot teaches the apparatus as described in claim 13, but does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Song teaches:
wherein the gesture detection unit predicts, on a basis of the movement of the hand base portion and the movement of the first finger, the virtual object to be pinched by the user and the output control unit changes a display mode of the virtual object that has been predicted to be pinched by the user [(e.g. see Song paragraphs 0058, 0080, 0081) ”for example, “select” may be represented by changing a state of releasing fingers to a state of grabbing in which two or more fingers, including the thumb, are closed … the scene setter 160 may first determine whether a hand and an object are matched from information about a position and a shape of the hand, which has been obtained by the hand position/shape analyzer 120, and then determine a tool for selecting a virtual object according to whether the hand and the object are matched … FIG. 5 illustrates an example of selecting a virtual object 5 by the hand 1 since the hand 1 and an image are matched. As shown in FIG. 5, when the hand 1 and the virtual object 5 are matched, whether the virtual object 5 is selected may be indicated by, for example, highlighting an outline of the selected virtual object 5 or adjusting a tone of the selected virtual object 5. In addition, accuracy of an interaction may be increased by displaying a polygon or closed curve of a different color at a portion 5a where the selected virtual object 5 and the hand 1 meet. FIG. 5 shows an example of indicating a selection by highlighting the portion 5a where the selected virtual object 5 and the hand 1 meet”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2014/0071069 A1 issued to Anderson et al. on 13 March 2014. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-17 (e.g. pinch gesture for interacting with virtual objects).
U.S. Patent 10,990,240 B1 issued to Ravasz et al. on 27 April 2021. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-17 (e.g. pinch gesture for interacting with virtual objects in VR).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights