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 .
Claims 1-11, 13-16 and 18-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, dated Dec. 18, 2025 has been entered and made of record. Applicant has not amended the title, and the objection to the specification remains.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument has been fully considered, and Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, it has been amended to broaden the scope of the claim set, and Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 6)
Claims 1 and 3-10 have been amended to clarify and further define this patentable subject matter. For example, the term “tendril” is now more broadly recited as a “visual representation of a connection” or a “connecting body” … The conditions “slack” and “taut” are not more precisely defined as states of “first tension” and “second tension” occurring at respective predetermined distances form the object’s boundary. (Emphasis added by Examiner)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s amendment fails to “more precisely define” the conditions occurring at the object’s boundary. On the contrary, it made claim 1 indefinite, because the amended limitation “a visual representation of a connection between an object and boundary of the object” does not correspond to any of the embodiments of the present application.
Specifically, the deleted limitation “a distance check of the object” is at least supported by drawing FIG. 1 and paras. [0064-0069], while two objects A and B are reasonably inferred between the “distance check of the object”. However, the “visual representation of a connection between an object and boundary of the object” simply does not make any sense, because it refers only one object and a connection to the boundary of the object itself. The entire specification and drawings of the present application is silent regarding such feature.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot understand what it means, thus claim 1 is indefinite, and may contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art. Examiner notes that there is great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of claim 1, thus it would not be proper to reject such claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Please see MPEP 2173.06 II.
As to claims 2-10, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are indefinite at least for the same reason above, thus are not allowable.
As to claim 11, it has been amended to further recite “a visual representation of a menu that can be used by the one hand of the user, wherein the visual representation has a first mode and a second mode; wherein the first mode comprises a first stage and a second stage, wherein the first stage is activated when the hand of the user is in a first orientation with respect to the camera, and wherein the second stage is activated when the hand of the user is in a second orientation with respect to the camera”, and Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 7)
This amended language corresponds to the allowable subject matter identified by the Examiner. Support for this feature can be found in the specification at, for example, paragraphs [0092] and [0098].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended language, which is substantially different from the allowable subject matter, does not correspond to the allowable subject matter, and Cater in view of Ravasz still teaches them. Please see below for claim rejections for detailed analysis.
Accordingly, claim 11 is not allowable.
As to claims 2-10, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are indefinite at least for the same reason above, thus are not allowable.
As to claim 16, it is allowable. Please see the allowable subject matter for detailed analysis.
As to claims 18-21, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 16, and are allowable at least for the same reason above.
Examiner maintains his decision, and provides succinct explanation as described above.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: HAND GESTURE TRACKING TECHNIQUES USING VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF CONNECTION THROUGH TENDRIL.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13 and 15 directly or indirectly refer to claim 12, while claim 12 is cancelled.
Claim 15 recites “locked world space”, while it should be “locked world space stage”.
Claim 16 recites a “virtual container”, while the entire specification and drawings are silent regarding “container”. Examiner interprets it as “(Black Hole) Storage” ([0089]), for the purpose of the following allowance.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the amended limitation “a visual representation of a connection between an object and boundary of the object”, but it does not correspond to any of the embodiments of the present application.
Specifically, the deleted limitation “a distance check of the object” is at least supported by drawing FIG. 1 and paras. [0064-0069], while two objects A and B are reasonably inferred between the “distance check of the object”. However, the “visual representation of a connection between an object and boundary of the object” simply does not make any sense, because it refers only one object and the boundary of the object itself. The entire specification and drawings of the present application is silent regarding such feature.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot understand what it means, thus claim 1 is indefinite, and may contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art. Examiner understands that Applicant may have intended that the “connection” was meant to be between an object and another object (e.g., objects A and B). However, claim 1 fails to clearly recite such feature, thus Examiner is bound to interpret that claim 1 recites only one object, and it is completely uncertain what the “connection” between the “object” and the “boundary of the object” means, and Examiner finds no clear written description even in view of the entire specification and drawings, as shown above in comparison.
Accordingly, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art. Examiner notes that there is great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of claim 1.
Claims 2-10 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are not allowable at least for the same reason described above.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “visual representation of a connection between an object and boundary of the object”, and it simply does not make sense.
Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-10 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are indefinite at least for the same reason above.
Examiner notes that there is great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of claim 1, thus it would not be proper to reject such claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Please see MPEP 2173.06 II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cater et al. (US 2018/0039333 A1) in view of Ravasz et al. (US 11,003,307 B1).
As to claim 11, Carter teaches a mid-air haptic feedback system (Carter, FIG. 1, [0024], “model 100 of a hand 110 interacting with a haptically generated virtual object 120”) comprising:
a phased array of ultrasonic transducers including a first ultrasonic transducer and a second ultrasonic transducer, and the phased array of ultrasonic transducers used to exert an acoustic radiation force (Carter, FIG. 1, [0026], “the state of the ultrasonic waves in the acoustic field is driven linearly by the complex valued activation coefficients of each transducer”; “this requires, grouping all of these complex values for all transducers into a high-dimensional phase space”) on a target (Carter, FIG. 1, [0024], “haptically generated virtual object 120”) by defining at least one control point in a space within which an acoustic field exists (Carter FIG. 1, [0026], “linearly interpolating between a first state in the space (that represents, for instance, an end point on one curve) and a second state (that represents an initial point at a different location)”);
wherein the ultrasonic transducers are controlled to create the acoustic field to exhibit a reference amplitude at each of the at least one control point (Carter, FIG. 1, [0024], “points 132, 134, 136, 138 where the hand touches the virtual shape are connected into a path 140, and this path 140 is actuated, creating the feeling while moving the focus smoothly. Smooth movement of the focus along the path 140 without interruption minimizes any unwanted audible noise, resulting in correct, strong haptic sensation across multiple fingers while operating quietly”).
Carter does not teach “a camera for tracking a hand of a user; a visual representation of a menu that can be used by the hand of the user, wherein the visual representation has first mode and a second mode; wherein the first mode comprises a first stage and a second stage, wherein the first stage is activated when the hand of the user is in a first orientation with respect to the camera, and wherein the second stage is activated when the hand of the user is in a second orientation with respect to the camera”.
However, Ravasz teaches the concepts of a camera for tracking a hand of a user (Ravasz, FIGS. 1-2, “artificial reality system 10 performs object recognition within image data captured by image capture devices 138 of HMD 112 (and/or by external cameras 102) to identify hand 132”; “tracks the position, orientation, and configuration of hand 132 (optionally including particular digits of the hand) and/or portions of arm 134 over a sliding window of time”);
a visual representation of a menu that can be used by the hand of the user (Ravasz, FIG. 11, “UI engines 328, 428 and rendering engines 322, 422 may gate rendering of a UI element, such as circular (radial) menu 922”), wherein the visual representation has a first mode (Ravasz, FIG. 11, the mode corresponding to only rendering “circular menu 922”) and a second mode (Ravasz, FIG. 11, the mode corresponding to additionally rendering “granular menu 924”, i.e., the mode rendering both “circular menu 922” and “granular menu 924”);
wherein the first mode (Ravasz, FIG. 11, the mode corresponding to only rendering “circular menu 922”) comprises a first stage (Ravasz, FIG. 11, the stage in which “pulling motion 918 terminates within a predefined distance from opposite wrist 902”) and a second stage (Ravasz, FIG. 11, the stage in which “pulling motion 918 terminates at any distance from opposite wrist 902 that is greater than the predefined distance”),
wherein the first stage is activated when the hand of the user is in a first orientation with respect to the camera, and wherein the second stage is activated when the hand of the user is in a second orientation with respect to the camera (Ravasz, FIG. 11, it is reasonably inferred that “pulling motion 918” changes the orientation of the hand with respect to the camera, which correspond to the “first/second orientation(s) with respect to the camera”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “model 100 of a hand 110 interacting with a haptically generated virtual object 120” taught by Carter to further comprise the “image capture devices 138” and “UI engines 328, 428 and rendering engines 322, 422” so as to visually represent a menu such as the “circular (radial) menu 922”, as taught by Ravasz, for “presenting and controlling user interface (UI) elements within an artificial reality environment” (Ravasz, col. 1, ll. 42-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 and 18-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection, set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 13, the closest known prior art, i.e., Carter et al. (US 2018/0039333 A1), Ravasz et al. (US 11,003,307 B1), Lemay et al. (US 2021/0191600 A1), Ishikawa et al. (US 2023/0168733 A1), Carter et al. (US 2017/0018171 A1), Kappus et al. (US 2021/0381765 A1), Horiuchi (US 2020/0258357 A1), Ochiai et al. (US 2017/0004819 A1), Long et al. (US 2016/0320843 A1), Hamilton et al. (US 2021/0389825 A1) and Dash (US 2017/0090747 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “a third stage that is activated when the hand of the user is in a first pose”.
As to claim 14, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the first mode is an attached to hand mode and the second mode is a detached from hand mode”.
As to claim 15, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the first stage is a hidden menu stage, the second stage is a shown menu stage, and the third stage is a locked world space”.
As to claim 16, it is persuasive that “claim 16 has been amended to incorporate subject matter from original allowable dependent claim 17” (Remarks, p. 7).
Accordingly, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “a virtual container appears at the object's position”.
As to claims 18-21, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 16, and are allowable at least for the reason above.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Dash (US 2017/0090747 A1) teaches the concept that “movement of the hands is tracked and associated with gestures enabled by the movement” (Abs.).
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 RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
Mar. 27, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights