Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-5 are pending. Bolded claim language below regards newly amended subject matter with a corresponding new rejection citation. Newly amended subject matter that is not bolded does not comprise a new rejection citation (utilizes previous interpretation that is unchanged in view of the new language) or is a newly added claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US Patent Application Publication 2002/0158827) in view of Breen et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0211768), herein after referred to as Breen.
Regarding independent claim 1, Zimmerman discloses an information processing device (Abstract and figure 1 reference user interface device 10.) comprising:
a display unit (14) configured to display a movable indicator (32)(paragraph [0030]);
a detector (18) configured to detect a direction (28+30) of a face of a user (Paragraph [0029] describes detecting movement of a head (including face) of a user.); and
a movement controller (15) configured to suppress the indicator from moving on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction (Paragraph [0030] describes excessive or exaggerated head movement will not cause (suppress) the cursor to move any further than the limits of the screen (describing the excessive/exaggerated head movement to regard a predetermined angle range beyond the limits of the screen). Additionally, said paragraph describes the excessive or exaggerated head movement are used to re-center, or align the cursor 332 on screen 14 (suppress correlation of cursor to head movement).).
Zimmer does not specifically disclose to reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction.
Breen discloses to reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction (Paragraph [0062] describes to change the mouse cursor speed proportional to the current head deflection angle such that when the head deflection angle is above a threshold the speed of the mouse cursor changes.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Zimmer with the known technique of reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction yielding the predictable results of providing a more natural feel to some users as disclosed by Breen (paragraph [0061]).
Regarding independent claim 4, Zimmerman discloses an information processing device (Abstract and figure 1 reference user interface device 10.) comprising:
a display step of displaying a movable indicator (32) on a display unit (14) (paragraph [0030]);
a detection step of detecting (18) a direction (28+30) of a face of a user (Paragraph [0029] describes detecting movement of a head (including face) of a user.); and
a movement control step of suppressing the indicator from moving on the display unit, when the detected direction of the face of the user is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction (Paragraph [0030] describes excessive or exaggerated head movement will not cause (suppress) the cursor to move any further than the limits of the screen (describing the excessive/exaggerated head movement to regard a predetermined angle range beyond the limits of the screen). Additionally, said paragraph describes the excessive or exaggerated head movement are used to re-center, or align the cursor 332 on screen 14 (suppress correlation of cursor to head movement).).
Zimmer does not specifically disclose to reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction.
Breen discloses to reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction (Paragraph [0062] describes to change the mouse cursor speed proportional to the current head deflection angle such that when the head deflection angle is above a threshold the speed of the mouse cursor changes.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Zimmer with the known technique of reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction yielding the predictable results of providing a more natural feel to some users as disclosed by Breen (paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Zimmerman discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute operations (Paragraphs [0006] and [0026] describes software operated on an operating system such as Windows and UNIX inherent to regard a stored program executed by a processor.) comprising:
a display step of displaying a movable indicator (32) on a display unit (14) (paragraph [0030]);
a detection step of detecting (18) a direction (28+30) of a face of a user (Paragraph [0029] describes detecting movement of a head (including face) of a user.); and
a movement control step of suppressing the indicator from moving on the display unit, when the detected direction of the face of the user is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction (Paragraph [0030] describes excessive or exaggerated head movement will not cause (suppress) the cursor to move any further than the limits of the screen (describing the excessive/exaggerated head movement to regard a predetermined angle range beyond the limits of the screen). Additionally, said paragraph describes the excessive or exaggerated head movement are used to re-center, or align the cursor 332 on screen 14 (suppress correlation of cursor to head movement).).
Zimmer does not specifically disclose to reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction.
Breen discloses to reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction (Paragraph [0062] describes to change the mouse cursor speed proportional to the current head deflection angle such that when the head deflection angle is above a threshold the speed of the mouse cursor changes.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Zimmer with the known technique of reduce a moving speed of the indicator on the display unit, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is a direction within a predetermined angle range with respect to a forward direction yielding the predictable results of providing a more natural feel to some users as disclosed by Breen (paragraph [0061]).
4. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman-Breen in view of Kang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0314396), herein after referred to as Kang.
Regarding claim 2, Zimmerman and Breen discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising [ ] that the moving speed of the indicator is reduced from moving, when the direction of the face of the user detected by the detector is the direction within the predetermined angle range with respect to the forward direction (Zimmerman: paragraph [0030] describes excessive or exaggerated head movement will not cause (suppress) the cursor to move any further than the limits of the screen (describing the excessive/exaggerated head movement to regard a predetermined angle range beyond the limits of the screen). Additionally, said paragraph describes the excessive or exaggerated head movement are used to re-center, or align the cursor 332 on screen 14 (suppress correlation of cursor to head movement). Breen: paragraph [0062].).
Neither Zimmerman or Breen specifically disclose a notifying unit configured to notify the user that the indicator is suppressed from moving
Kang discloses a notifying unit configured to notify the user that the indicator is suppressed from moving (Figures 9-11 and paragraphs [0187]-[0188] describes a first cursor 910 for a pointer different from a second cursor 960/970 for the pointer. Wherein the second cursor is applied when the pointer is restricted (suppressed from moving) in both the x and y direction. Paragraph [0203] describes an alarm message may be displayed or (similar to Zimmerman) the pointer to be displayed at a predetermined location.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Zimmerman with the known technique of a notifying unit configured to notify the user that the indicator is suppressed from moving yielding the predictable results of making the user aware of the current state as disclosed by Kang (Paragraph [0203]).
5. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman-Breen in view of Fotland (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0169171).
Regarding claim 3, Zimmerman discloses the information processing device according to claim 1.
Neither Zimmerman or Breen specifically disclose wherein the movement controller changes the predetermined angle range according to a distance between the detector and the user.
Fotland discloses wherein the movement controller changes the predetermined angle range according to a distance between the detector and the user (Figures 12A-12C and paragraphs [0061]-[0065] describes a user’s head movement is used to control the cursor position based on the line of sight. The distance between the user and the device is determined to compensate for changes in the user’s orientation. The detected distance scales proportionally the approximate angles used for cursor control.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Zimmerman with the known technique of wherein the movement controller changes the predetermined angle range according to a distance between the detector and the user yielding the predictable results of initial calibration and scaling proportionally the angles as disclosed by Fotland (paragraphs [0061] and [0063]).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2025 have been fully considered and relate towards newly amended subject matter. Please refer to the above office action as rebuttal. Newly cited art Breen is utilized in combination with Zimmerman to disclose the newly amended subject matter. This action is final necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
7. 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 CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3142. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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 E LEIBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621